Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AYCLIFFE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DISTRICT HEATING) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'Clock.

BOOTLE EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

CARDIFF EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next at Seven o'Clock.

OLDHAM EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

SUNDERLAND EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'Clock.

DUNDEE CORPORATION (ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

NEWPORT EXTENSION BILL

Order [28th March], "That the Bill be read a Second time upon Tuesday next," read, and discharged.

Bill withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Textile Industry, Lancashire

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the Minister of Labour how many additional operatives are now required in the spinning, weaving and finishing sections of the Lancashire textile industry; and what steps the Government is taking to fill these requirements.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): No substantial increase is expected to be required in the size of the labour force of the Lancashire cotton industry in 1950. The main task will be to recruit sufficient workers to offset wastage. We shall continue to encourage school leavers to enter the industry, to recruit adult British workers and to supplement this so far as necessary by supplying female European volunteer workers. Progress so far this year is satisfactory.

Mr. Prescott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many families in Lancashire will not put their children into the textile industry because they are apprehensive about future Japanese competition? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Foreign Secretary and try to make a statement on this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: It is the first I have heard of that particular reason, but the fact is that the entry of children into the industry is increasing considerably. General manpower in the industry increased in January of this year by 2,500.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that such apprehensions as there are are based on the still lively recollection in Lancashire of heavy unemployment, heavy part-time employment and starvation wages and that the best guarantee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that the best guarantee to the Lancashire labour for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] On a point of Order. I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—is it in Order that I should be constantly interrupted?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member should be allowed to ask his question.

Mr. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the best service he can render to the maintenance of the labour force in Lancashire is—

Air-Commodore Harvey: To build more houses—

Mr. Silverman: —to continue with the social policy of the Government?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving close attention to the possible effect on the future employment of our own people of any further admissions of displaced persons to this industry?

Mr. Isaacs: Most decidedly. Considering the total number in the industry, and the number of European voluntary workers, there is no need to be apprehensive on that score at all.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that after the First World War a large amount of the textile machinery was sent from Lancashire to Japan, to compete against us?

Factory Acts

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Labour how many prosecutions for infringement of the Factory Acts have been instigated by his Department during each of the last five years; and in how many cases in each year; and in how many cases in each year have the prosecutions resulted in convictions.

Mr. Isaacs: As the answer comprises a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


Year
Prosecutions
Cases in which conviction resulted


1945
1,255
994


1946
1,099
828


1947
914
764


1948
891
737


1949
1,080
903


Total
5,239
4,226

Nationalised Industries (Disputes)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Labour if he will institute an

inquiry into the causes of the high proportion of industrial disputes in the nationalised industries.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to investigate this matter, having regard to the fact that two-thirds of the strikes taking place are in nationalised industries?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think it necessary to make such an inquiry in view of the fact that the number of disputes in 1949 was considerably less than the average for the previous five years. As there is better stability in industry now, I think we should do no good service by doing as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why if, there is this increased stability, it does not apply to the nationalised industries, but only applies under private enterprise?

Mr. Isaacs: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures relating to the nationalised industries he will find that the situation is as I have indicated.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say if the Opposition have yet made up their minds whether there are more strikes in the nationalised industries, or whether strikes are impossible in nationalised industries, as my right hon. Friend says?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister cannot answer for the Opposition.

Factory Inspection, Wales

Mrs. Eirene White: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to bring the factory inspectorate in Wales into line with the organisation of the rest of his Department, instead of basing it on the West Midlands and Western divisions, for North and South Wales, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: As at present advised there do not appear to be sufficient grounds for altering the well established arrangement under which, in view of the location of factories and means of communication, the groups of factory inspection districts covering North and South Wales respectively are linked with different divisional offices.

Mrs. White: While acknowledging the historical reasons for the present arrangements, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that we in Wales prefer to be run by a Welsh office rather than from Wolverhampton and Bristol, estimable as those places may be; and that so far as North Wales is concerned, we do not think that a division which includes Derby and places as far distant as Anglesey and Caernarvon is really a very efficient organisation?

Mr. Isaacs: I hope my hon. Friend will notice that I said, "as at present advised." I am not at all antagonistic to the idea which the hon. Lady has in mind.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the Minister give an assurance that inspectors carrying out these duties in Wales are conversant with the Welsh language?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, and in view of the very severe tests which these inspectors have to pass it would be unreasonable to make it compulsory that they should learn Welsh.

Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Welsh people are much more concerned with the efficiency of the factory inspector than with the location of the office? Will he insist upon English-speaking Welshmen having equal opportunity with those who speak Welsh?

Remploy Factory, Team Valley

Mr. J. Hall: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the delay in building the Remploy factory for severely disabled persons at the Team Valley Trading Estate; and, in view of the lack of suitable light employment for such men, if he will make a statement on the date when this project will be completed.

Mr. Isaacs: I understand that Remploy Ltd. were not able to get possession of the premises until November last. Work of adaptation is proceeding satisfactorily, and it is hoped to have the factory ready very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (DEFERMENT)

Mr. G. B. Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour why young graduates in science and technicians who choose to

enter the scientific branches of the Civil Service thereby secure deferment of National Service until the age of 26, after which they can no longer be legally called up, whereas those who choose to enter non-Government employment in a scientific capacity must first complete 18 months' National Service.

Mr. Isaacs: These arrangements do not apply to the scientific Civil Service as a whole, but only to a limited number of posts on work of exceptional urgency and importance.

Mr. Craddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on or about 17th February one of his officials visited King's College, London, to explain this position to the senior undergraduates, and that that explanation was very much the same as I have outlined in my Question?

Mr. Isaacs: I have answered exactly what the hon. Gentleman asked.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make membership of the Territorial Services a condition of deferment.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The great majority of young men who are granted deferment will later perform exactly the same National Service as other young men, and I would not feel justified in seeking power to put an additional obligation on them.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these deferred men, when their deferment ceases, are not called up, and that this is causing concern to those who do their National! Service, and then have a period of Territorial Service as well? Will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware of that, and I will be glad to look into it if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES

Mr. Lionel Heald: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the proposed investigation of various complaints of alleged restrictive practices by trade and employers' organisations set out in the report (H.C. 21) under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and


Control) Act, 1948, what steps he proposes to take to provide machinery for similar independent investigation of alleged restrictive practices of trade unions.

Mr. Isaacs: The question of restrictive practices in industry is still under consideration by the National Joint Advisory Council.

Mr. Heald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 22nd April, 1948, the Lord President of the Council, on the Second Reading of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Bill, undertook that this matter should be inquired into? Is he further aware that he himself, on 13th December, told the House there would be a report on this matter early in the new year; and does not he think that it is getting late in the new year?

Mr. Isaacs: Both of those undertakings were carried out, but we considered that the employers' and workers' sides of industry were the best people to inquire into all the allegation. They have made their inquiries, and I understand that they are now able to present their report to the Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION CONVENTIONS

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made by the Joint Committee of the Brussels Powers set up to study the implications and prospects of ratification of International Labour Organisation Conventions; and whether its work has resulted in any additional ratifications.

Mr. Isaacs: The results of this study were summarised in an article which appeared in the February issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend. I understand that the Committee is proposing to give further consideration to this question at its autumn session.

Mr. Hynd: In giving further consideration to this matter, will the Minister bear in mind the desirability of making minor adjustments to the existing conventions, some of which were passed many years

ago, in order to bring them up to date and make them more capable of ratification by countries who have surpassed these conditions in their own legislation?

Mr. Isaacs: It is not for me to give a decision. Whether it is a result of the meetings of the Committee or not, I can say that 11 conventions have been ratified by France since the Committee was established; three by Belgium, one by Luxembourg, and 10 by the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Milk (Holidays)

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Education whether he will take steps to enable school children to receive their allowance of milk during school holidays.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): Local education authorities know from paragraph 19 of Circular 119, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, that they may organise centres to provide school children with milk during school holidays if there is sufficient demand.

Dr. Stross: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask whether it would be possible now, in view of the de-rationing of milk, to organise the presentation of vouchers to school children which could be exchanged with milkmen for milk during their holidays?

Mr. Tomlinson: We have looked at this matter, and the difficulties of administering a scheme of that kind far outweigh its importance.

Teachers (Exchange)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education how many British teachers were exchanged with American teachers in 1949; and how many it is proposed to exchange in 1950.

Mr. Tomlinson: Ninety-seven exchanges were arranged for the year 1949–50; the corresponding number in 1950–51 will be 74.

Mr. Hollis: Can the Minister answer the second part of my Question, which asks for the reason for the reduction?

Mr. Tomlinson: The reason is not asked for in the Question, but it is that the cost is greater.

Roman Catholic Schools

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Minister of Education whether he will give an estimate of the sum which at today's prices will have to be provided by the Roman Catholic community if the requirements of the development plan submitted by the local education authority for the City of Liverpool are to be fulfilled.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am considering a suggestion from the Roman Catholic hierarch), that an estimate of this kind should be prepared for the country as a whole. Any such estimate would, naturally, cover Liverpool.

Mr. Irvine: Although my right hon. Friend cannot give a figure at the moment, as I can understand, does he agree that an intolerable burden is being imposed and will he take every step that he can to alleviate it?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is another question.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that the Breconshire County Council have refused to make any payment towards the cost of transporting Roman Catholic children from Crickhowell to the Catholic school at Abergavenny; and whether he will now intervene in order that the Roman Catholic community at Crickhowell should not be penalised by reason of having their children educated at the school of their choice.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am aware of this refusal by the Breconshire County Council. I have been in communication with the authority on the subject for some considerable time, but I think that it will now soon be settled.

Meeting, Chipping Norton

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Education why a party of boys from the Chipping Norton County School were taken to a Labour Party meeting on Wednesday, 1st February, during school hours.

Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that on this date school games had to be cancelled

owing to bad weather and that 11 senior pupils asked for and were given permission to go, instead, to hear an address by the Minister of Education.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Was the Minister's talk solely confined to soccer, which the boys were unable to play elsewhere?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. I understand, from the letter I received from the headmaster, that it was not particularly that they wanted to hear the Minister of Education but rather that they wanted to see him.

Teachers (National Service)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Education why increments are not paid to men called up for National Service who, as conscientious objectors, comply with the conditions laid upon them by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Tomlinson: I presume that the Question refers to teachers whose salaries are governed by the Burnham reports. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has correctly interpreted the existing reports, and if he will let me have particulars of any case which he has in mind I will make inquiries.

Hylean Amazon Institute

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Minister of Education why His Majesty's Government has not yet become a full member of the International Institute of the Hylean Amazon; and whether he will now take the necessary steps to obtain such membership.

Mr. Tomlinson: His Majesty's Government gave very careful consideration to the possibility of this country becoming a member of the International Institute of the Hylean Amazon, but regretfully decided that the hard currency expenditure which membership would involve should not be incurred in view of the difficulty of arranging such overseas payments. As long as this difficulty persists, it will, I fear, be unlikely that His Majesty's Government will alter its decision.

Mr. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the French and Dutch Governments, whose interests in the area are similar in kind but less in degree, have become full members of this Institute; and in view


of the important long-term interests of British trade in the area will he reconsider this disappointing decision?

Mr. Tomlinson: When the circumstances that I have outlined change, we will consider the matter.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what this Institute is? Is it a ladies club?

Mr. Tomlinson: The International Institute of the Hylean Amazon has been formed by the co-operative effort of the interested Latin-American countries, in particular Brazil, to carry out a scientific investigation of the tropical forests of the Amazon basin.

Mr. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the statement he has just made is misleading, and that many foreign countries are participating fully in this experiment, which concerns our Colonies in the Western Hemisphere?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think that it is a very good scheme. If we could afford to do all the things we should like to do, this is one of the things we should do. My statement was not misleading at all. I did not say anything other than that certain nations were peculiarly interested in the matter.

School Uniforms

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Education if, owing to the dissatisfaction expressed by school teachers and parents since the withdrawal of the grant for school uniforms, under Circular 210, he will now consider restoring this grant.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. In the present national situation it is necessary to restrict my Department's expenditure to meeting essential needs.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost is not at all high; that school uniform gives a student a pride in his school and ensures good behaviour out of school; and that without school uniforms class distinction will be created between pupils?

Mr. Tomlinson: All of the suggested economies that I have made in education are small. If we are to be governed by the smallness or otherwise of the

economy, and not by the educational efficiency, there is no end to what could not be done in this direction.

H.M. Inspectors of Schools

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Education what is the total complement of His Majesty's inspectors engaged upon the inspection of primary and modern schools in England and Wales; how many of these have actual teaching experience in these types of school; and how many have had more than five years' teaching experience in these types of school.

Mr. Tomlinson: Any one of His Majesty's inspectors may be called upon to inspect in primary or modern schools and few inspect exclusively in them. Approximately 330 cover most of the inspections in these schools; 187 have had teaching experience in elementary, primary or modern schools, 130 of them for more than five years.

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Education, when appointing His Majesty's inspectors of schools, what consultation takes place between his Department and the local education authority.

Mr. Tomlinson: None, Sir, except by way of reference to an employer or to a referee nominated by a candidate.

Sir Waldron Smithers: What steps are taken, before appointing His Majesty's inspectors of schools, to see that they do not belong to the Communist Party?

Mr. Tomlinson: None, Sir.

Voluntary Schools

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy towards Form 18, which lays down the conditions upon which aided status may be given to voluntary schools.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. My discussions on this matter are not yet completed.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety among denominations and many voluntary managers on this matter? They have to give undertakings at this stage about an uncertain future when it is not clear when some of the schools are to be built. While realising that it is clearly important to work within the framework of the 1944 Act, will the


right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, at the earliest possible date, he will alleviate some of the anxieties felt by the denominations and managers, and announce a plan which enables them to accept these obligations in an honourable and effective manner?

Mr. Tomlinson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting his question in that form. We are now pursuing the matter about which he has spoken. If we can get agreement on certain proposals which have been made with that object in view I shall be happy to announce it to the House.

School Certificate (Age Limit)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the fact that the age limit for taking the School Certificate is to be waived for certain pupils in 1950, he will also waive it in 1951, for such pupils whose education would receive advantage from this freedom.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. This year's concession is confined to a limited and non-recurring class of candidate.

Mr. Hollis: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain a little more? Will this not still be so in 1951, when there will be a certain class of candidates who want to complete their qualification, though not so many as in 1950?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. The circumstances are such that that could not arise. The people who have been given permission are those who obtained a Certificate last year but need to add one additional subject to it in 1950. The age limit does apply this year. Therefore, any who come in this category next year would automatically qualify.

Youth Organisations

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of Education the actual or estimated percentage of young people between the ages of 15 and 20 years who are attached to organisations recognised by the Youth Service in England and Wales, respectively; and if the figures represent an increase or decrease during the past few years.

Mr. Tomlinson: I regret that the figures for which my hon. Friend asks

are not available, nor could they be obtained with any accuracy without an undue expenditure of labour. According to the returns of the national voluntary youth organisations the numbers of young people belonging to these organisations have increased substantially since 1945.

Teachers (Grants)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Education in what respects grants for teachers in training differ from those for students in universities.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sending my hon. Friend documents explaining the grants available for State scholars at universities, and for students at training colleges. There is no rigid uniformity in the arrangements made by local authorities for university awards, but they have been recommended to follow the principles adopted for State scholarships.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many student teachers in training feel that they are subjected to a most unfortunate means test in the matter of grants?

Mr. Tomlinson: As my hon. Friend knows, the whole question of awards for higher education is under review. I am well aware of the differences between university awards and those available for teachers in training, and I agree that some changes will have to be made.

School Meals, Merthyr Tydfil

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the big reduction in the number of meals partaken of by the school children in Merthyr Tydfil because of the increased charge recently imposed by his Department; and if he will therefore reconsider this increase.

Mr. Tomlinson: The decision to raise the charge for school dinners to 6d. was taken by the Government in order to effect necessary economies in national expenditure. The answer to the second part of the Question is, therefore, "No, Sir."

Mr. Davies: Has my right hon. Friend now had sufficient evidence to appreciate the disastrous consequences of this decrease in the numbers of school meals?


Is he not aware that in my own constituency the reduction in the number of meals taken by the children amounts, some weeks, to 25 per cent.?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the effect in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am very sorry that a number of Merthyr Tydfil parents have withdrawn their children from school dinner service since the price went up to 6d. But I would remind my hon. Friend that this charge is within the daily average expenditure on food, and that the gross cost of the meal is nearer 1s. 2d. than 6d.

Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the free meals service for schools was an integral part of the family allowances scheme, and that the decision of the Ministry to increase this charge is a reversal of a decision of Parliament? Will he instruct the Lord President of the Council to inform the public that it is the intention of the Labour Government to reduce the social services?

Mr. Davies: In view of the unsatisfactory reply given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Education to what extent the big reduction in the number of meals now taken by the children in the schools of Merthyr Tydfil has affected the unit cost per meal.

Mr. Tomlinson: The unit costs for Merthyr Tydfil's school dinners, which were based on estimates made by the local education authority in October, were fixed in December last. If the authority find that the amount of dinner grant due to them, on the basis of those costs, falls short of their expenditure, it is open to them to submit for consideration under the grant regulations that this situation arises from the drop in the number of meals caused by the increased charge compared with the number on which they based their October estimate.

Training College, Liverpool

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that 75 qualified male teachers at Sefton

Park Training College, Liverpool, out of 180, are unable to get posts; and, in view of the need for teachers, what action he proposes to take to make the best use of these men.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am aware that 61 of these men have still not obtained posts. I have urged local education authorities in the Merseyside area to do all they can to absorb as many as possible of the Sefton Park Emergency Training College men. Steps have also been taken to ensure that the men are fully informed about the availability of posts in the country as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN TERRITORIES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the Government's policy towards the three Protectorates of Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): The general policy of the United Kingdom Government is to take all steps that are practicable to encourage the political development and economic advance of the three territories. As my hon. Friend is aware, considerable assistance has been, and is being, given by grants from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, and by the Colonial Development Corporation, in development and welfare schemes. Every suitable opportunity is taken to develop and improve the system of devolving appropriate functions and responsibilities on the native authorities.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister of South Africa has said that he will lay a claim on the British Government to have the Protectorate handed over to South Africa? Will he assure the House that the decision of the Government on the Seretse Khama case is not to be taken as a sign of further appeasement to South Africa on this issue also?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The policy of the Government on the question of transfer of territories has been affirmed and reaffirmed on a number of occasions and, naturally, remains unaltered. It is that there could be no question of transfer until the inhabitants of the territories,


both African and European, have been consulted, and until this House and Parliament have been given an opportunity of expressing their views.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Newspaper Placards

Brigadier Rayner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now allow newpapers to display printed placards.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Newspapers may display printed posters indicating permanent, regular or recurring features appearing in a series of issues, but printed posters indicating current or topical matter appearing in one particular issue would require more paper than can at present be afforded.

Brigadier Rayner: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the bad psychological effect of the present untidy and sometimes illegible and misleading daubs that we have today, and the down-and-sometimes illegible and misleading daubs that we have today, and the down-and-out impression which is given to foreign visitors? Will he not take a chance and give the evening and morning newapapers a moderate ration?

Mr. Wilson: As it happens, the evening and morning papers do not want it, because the appropriate trading body is against the use of newsprint for this purpose. It would mean, by their estimate, reducing the average size of newspapers by one page in every period of three months..

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider just an occasional special issue after 10 o'clock at night?

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the use made of headlines in most newspapers does not encourage many of us to offer them facilities for placards?

Film, "Chance of a Life-time"

Mr. Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the showing of the film "Chance of a Life-time" after its viewing by a Board of Trade Tribunal.

Mr. H. Wilson: An application in respect of this film was made to the Film

Selection Committee appointed under Section 5 (2) of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948. After viewing the film, the Committee recommended that it was suitable by reason of its entertainment value for exhibition as a first feature film by one of the three major circuits. We have accepted the Committee's recommendation and the necessary direction under the Act will very shortly be issued to the owners of the Odeon circuit, which has been chosen by lot to exhibit the film.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Rank organisation is doing everything it can to evade the spirit of the Act by proclaiming to the public that it believes that this film will make a loss, and that it proposes to publish this loss and demand that the Board of Trade should do something to compensate for it?

Mr. Wilson: I am aware of a statement attributed to Mr. Rank in a Sunday newspaper on this subject. I have told the Rank organisation that criticism of this kind about this film is hardly likely to induce the public to go to see it. I hope that the same efforts will be made in advertising and popularising this film as would apply to any films produced by the Rank organisation itself, in order that the purpose of the Act may not be frustrated.

Binder Twine

Captain Duncan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the price of binder twine has increased from £143 per ton to £162 since last November; whether this is being taken into consideration in the review of agricultural prices now being undertaken; and what steps he is taking to reduce the price of this commodity which is now five times the pre-war price.

Mr. H. Wilson: After discussions between the Central Price Regulation Committee and the manufacturers, the price of binder twine for the current season has been fixed at £162 a ton, £19 higher than last season's price. I understand that this increase was not taken into account in the recent review of agricultural prices because the data for that review had been assembled before the decision on binder twine had been reached. The increase is due to the rise


of over £30 a ton in the world price of sisal since last September. I am afraid that no reduction in the price of binder twine will be possible until there is a fall in the price of sisal, which is now seven times the 1938 price.

Captain Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a typical instance of rising prices which affect agriculture and fisheries, and which, in turn, will adversely affect the cost of living, which is steadily rising? Will he take steps to control this increased cost?

Mr. Wilson: I am delighted to hear an hon. Member of an Opposition ask me to control prices of goods which are available in a free market—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Really, hon. Members of the Opposition should not try to believe their own propaganda on this. The plain fact is that since sisal was returned to the free market there has been a very big increase in price, but if hon. Members opposite now press me to reimpose control I will consider it.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Has not the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that the rise in price of sisal brings in an enormous dollar crop as compensation, and is he not drawing a most unfair picture of the situation?

Mr. Wilson: I am aware of that fact; dollar earnings from sisal are very important, and I suggest that the hon. Member should bring that fact to the notice of his hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway.

Mr. John Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend ascertain what proportion of the tremendous increase in the price of sisal is going to the producer in Africa?

Exports (Dollar Areas)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage increase by volume of exports to dollar areas since devaluation; and how the nett receipts in dollars for such exports compare with the equivalent period in 1948–49.

Mr. H. Wilson: I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. The recorded sterling value of United Kingdom exports to the dollar

area in the five months following devaluation was 41 per cent. above the average for the third quarter of last year and 19 per cent. above the average for the corresponding five months of 1948–49. While figures are not available to show the volume of exports to the dollar area, it is clear that there has been a considerable increase in volume since devaluation.
In answer to the second part of the Question, in terms of United States dollars, recorded exports to the dollar area averaged 48.2 million dollars in the five months October, 1949, to February, 1950, compared with 58.2 million dollars in the corresponding period of 1948–49.

Mr. Watkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the result, which appears to me to indicate we are exporting a far greater volume for a far less return?

Mr. Wilson: I am not yet satisfied. It is clear that, following devaluation, the great slump that was occurring in British exports to the United States has been held, but we want to see a very much larger increase than we are getting at present.

Northern Ireland Firm (Address)

Professor Savory: asked the President of the Board of Trade why an invitation dated 17th March, of which he has been sent the original, was forwarded by his Department to the Coalisland Weaving Company of Coalisland, County Tyrone, marked Eire and in an envelope bearing the address Coalisland, County Tyrone, Irish Republic; and what steps he proposes to take in future to prevent this confusion between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic by his Department.

Mr. H. Wilson: The invitation to visit the British Industries Fair was sent to the company as part of a distribution of 250,000 invitations to buyers in the United Kingdom and overseas. The names and addresses of those invited are supplied in the main by exhibitors at the Fair. In the present instance the incorrect address was given in an exhibitors' list and the error was overlooked in my Department. This is an isolated case but most regrettable. I can assure the hon. Member that effective steps are being taken to


prevent a repetition. A suitable letter of apology is being addressed to the firm concerned.

Professor Savory: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one cannot wound more deeply the feelings of these loyal people than by confounding them with the Republicans—Republicans who, during the war, maintained German and Italian legations on their soil as centres of espionage?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot fight those battles now.

Cloth Supplies

Mr. Gammans: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that the increased supply of cloth for overall coats, caps and udder cloths is likely to reflect itself in greater supplies in dealers' hands.

Mr. H. Wilson: The improving supplies of overall cloths should reach dealers in the very near future. As regards udder cloths, the supplies of towelling from which they are made are not sufficient to meet every home and export demand, but here, also, all practicable steps are being taken to improve output.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the importance of these articles in the production of clean milk can the right hon. Gentleman give a reasonable assurance that there is not likely to be any shortage in future?

Mr. Wilson: As far as the first categories are concerned supplies should be increased, but I am much more worried about the supplies of udder cloths.

Travel and Holidays Association

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will announce the names of those who have been invited to serve on the British Travel and Holidays Association; giving, in addition, the interest each person represents.

Mr. H. Wilson: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister satisfied that all those interested in tourism are represented adequately?

Mr. Wilson: No, I think it will be very difficult for all those who are interested

in tourism to be represented on a Board of only 20 members, the more so as seven of the members elected by the Travel Association can hardly be regarded as fully representative of the interests principally concerned.

Following are those to be appointed by the President of the Board of Trade:

Sir Alexander Maxwell (Chairman).

Mr. Stanley Adams (Chairman, Thos. Cook & Son Ltd. and Pullman Car Co. Ltd. and other companies).

Mr. R. W. Batten (Chairman of North Hotels).

Mr. R. H. Hacker (Chief Officer, Continental Railway Executive).

Mr. B. H. Russell (a director of the Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd.).

Mr. B. A. Salmon (a managing director of J. Lyons & Co. Ltd.).

Mr. E. W. Wimble, C.B.E. (formerly Secretary and General Manager of the Workers' Travel Association).

Mr. Hugh Wontner, M.V.O. (Chairman of Savoy Hotel Ltd.).

Mr. Norman Wood (a director of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Ltd.).

Following are those elected by the Travel Association:

Alderman A. E. Davies, J.P. (an Alderman of the London County Council).

Alderman A. E. Sherman, J.P. (a member of the City Council of Liverpool).

Captain C. E. H. Master, J.P. (Chairman of Friary, Holroyd & Healy's Brewers Ltd.).

Mr. Samuel Hodson (Clerk to the Paignton Urban District Council).

Mr. E. L. Taylor (an executive of the British Electric Traction Co.).

Mr. S. Plowden Roberts (Managing Director of Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd.).

Mr. James Forbes (a director of Eastern Tea Companies).

The Northern Ireland Tourist Board have appointed their Chairman, Mr. J. Nelson McMillan. The appointments by the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards have not yet been made.

Overseas Trade (Reports)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange to include in future reports on Overseas Trade a table showing the


distribution of trade as between the United Kingdom on the one hand, and Empire and foreign countries, respectively, on the other hand.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir.

Consumer Advice Centre

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now take steps to establish a consumer advice centre.

Mr. H. Wilson: My Department is now working on the details of a proposal to set up a consumer advice centre. I shall not be in a position to make a further statement on this subject until that work has been carried further.

Miss Burton: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, and say what satisfaction it will give both to housewives and to manufacturers of good goods.

Cotton Yarn (Imports)

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Japanese-produced grey cloth of American yarns, between 30's and 36's, is being sold in this country at prices lower than this country pays America for the yarns of which it is made; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the Lancashire cotton industry from unfair Japanese competition and unfair American discrimination.

Mr. H. Wilson: Our imports of cotton yarn from the United States are negligible, and accordingly a comparison of the kind suggested cannot be made. The low price of Japanese grey cloth is due to lower production costs in Japan and not to American discrimination in the price of raw cotton. As regards the last part of the Question, His Majesty's Government are giving full attention to the possibility that the Lancashire cotton industry may need help against abnormal competition.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to recent statements in the "Manchester Guardian" along the lines on which this Question is posed, and does he deny that the price at which Japanese-produced grey cloth is sold in this country is, in fact, below the price we have to pay for the raw material, however little we buy?

Mr. Wilson: I have read the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, but he will realise that no Japanese cloth is being imported in this country today except in an unfinished state for finishing and re-export and that, in view of the shortage of the type of cloth involved, we are only too glad to get it at the moment.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that we are very glad indeed to have the support of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in this matter?

Mr. Harrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the comparative costs of the imported American fibre and of the imported Japanese grey cloth?

Mr. Wilson: Not without notice.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that finished piece goods and cotton cloth are being exported to this country from Japan via Hong Kong?

Mr. Wilson: There have been a lot of allegations about goods coming to this country and marked as of Hong Kong origin, which are alleged to be Japanese. We are making the most stringent inquiries, but I have not had, so far, any evidence that anything that comes from Hong Kong is manufactured in Japan. If it did we should take strict action.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Has the Minister formulated any plan to meet any dangers that may easily arise from serious Japanese competition?

Mr. Wilson: I think that is in the answer I have already given.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the widespread anxiety on this question, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter at an early opportunity on the Adjournment.

Factory, Clayton-le-Moors

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure continuity of employment at the factory shortly to be vacated by Messrs. Courtaulds at Clayton-le-Moors.

Mr. H. Wilson: I understand that this firm will be continuing in production until early next year, but I can assure my hon.


Friend that we are losing no opportunity of bringing to the notice of suitable industrialists the fact that this factory space will be available.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety felt by the 1,700 workers involved and by shopkeepers and others in the district? Will he try to relieve their anxiety by an early decision?

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware of the anxiety, though I am sure my hon. Friend will have realised this is not a question of a decision by me. It is a question of finding an alternative tenant capable of making use of so large a factory.

Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman making plans to cope with the situation or not?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, we are bringing the existence of this factory to the attention of any suitable industrialist who might be able to make use of it.

Hardwood

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage increase in the price of hardwood since decontrol.

Mr. H. Wilson: The wide variations in quality and wastage in the different types of timber included under the general heading of hardwood make impossible any precise comparison between present prices and the statutory prices in force before 16th January. In general, prices, particularly of better grades, appear to show an upward tendency; but they have not yet had time to settle at a realistic level.

Mr. Haire: Can the Minister discriminate between home-grown and imported hardwood? Is he aware that in the case of the former there has been an extortionate increase in prices recently?

Mr. Wilson: I am aware of the speech my hon. Friend made on this subject recently. The plain fact is that the controlled prices could not make a proper allowance for differences in quality in really exceptional types of home-grown timber. It is certainly possible, and I am not surprised, that a small amount of such timber is now fetching a higher price than the maximum controlled price.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the satisfactory results which have attended the recent decontrol of both imported and native hardwoods will the Minister consider extending these arrangements to include imported and native softwoods at an early date?

Mr. Wilson: The fact that I have said that it will take time to see whether prices will settle down is hardly to be taken as evidence of an unqualified success. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is no guide to softwood, which involves a very high dollar expenditure. In the case of softwood the merchants concerned would not agree to my offer to revert to private purchase provided ceiling price control was retained.

Mr. Turton: Is it not a fact that in certain categories the price is considerably lower than it was when control was in force?

Mr. Wilson: No doubt that is so.

Mr. Haire: Can the Minister justify the increase in the price of hardwood as sold by timber control—I refer to the national stock being sold.

Mr. Wilson: The prices of national stock were brought into line with what we regarded as the estimated market values.

Mr. Vane: Will the Minister bear in mind that any temporary, undue, fluctuation is largely due to his Department's too long retention of unreal control of prices at a level below the cost of production and only 25 per cent. above the 1939 level?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Housing

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far he has progressed with his plans for housing the police.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The responsibility for providing accommodation to meet the needs of the Force, which differ in different areas, rests on individual police authorities. The degree of progress made varies from one police district to another. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is about to issue a


circular to housing authorities asking them to give sympathetic consideration to the special needs of the police, to which attention was drawn in the Report of the Oaksey Committee.

Brigadier Rayner: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he will not get any of the good men he wants for the Police Force until he is able to provide far more tied houses for them?

Mr. Ede: We are at the moment dealing, I think, reasonably satisfactorily with this matter, having regard to the natural limitations. Local authorities throughout the country are letting out tenders for police houses at about the rate of 1,500 a year.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that will face local authorities when they get a circular asking them to give special priority to the police, in view of the many other claims from other priority persons?

Mr. Ede: If certain districts want extra policemen, which they continually ask me to provide, they must face up to the responsibility of providing houses for them.

Reserves

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the crime wave which this country is experiencing, he will consider creating a first police reserve, similar to the arrangements made during the war, under which retired members of the Police Force can return for one or five years to assist the understaffed Force, with a view to relieving strain on them.

Mr. Ede: Although the great majority of the first police reserves who served during the war have now retired, there are still a few serving in some county and borough forces, and the question of rebuilding this reserve is at present under consideration. The most urgent need at present is, however, to bring the regular police up to full establishment.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Home Secretary aware that the prime cause of the failure to check the present crime wave is due to the shortage of police; and, further, does he not realise that it

is vital and urgent that something should be done to secure better policing throughout the country? We realise, of course, that the present Police Force is excellent, but it is too small.

Mr. Ede: There are many things which need to be done, and recruitment to the Police Force is among the most important.

Mr. De la Bère: Then speed it up without further delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the persons not of British nationality mentioned on pages 731 to 733 of appendix J of the report of the Royal Commission in Canada on the spy trial have been permitted by him to enter this country and are now here; how long they have been here in each case; and what occupations they have been permitted to take up.

Mr. Ede: According to the information in my possession, none of the aliens referred to is in this country.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Home Secretary say whether, in view of the alarming revelations made yesterday in another place, the Government will take immediate and drastic action to suppress the Communist enemy in our midst?

Mr. Ede: As far as the persons referred to in the hon. Member's Question are concerned, a strict watch is kept for them, and if they attempted to come here they would not be allowed to land.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (RECRUITING)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have enrolled under the Civil Defence recruiting campaign for each of the Welsh boroughs and counties.

Mr. Ede: As the reply involves a table of figure, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


NUMBER OF PERSONS RECRUITED IN WALES BETWEEN 15Th NOVEMBER, 1949 AND END OF JANUARY, 1950


—
Civil Defence Corps
Auxiliary Fire Service
Special Constabulary


Counties:





Anglesey
…
…
…
…
4
—
14


Breconshire
…
…
…
…
2
* 1
† (Mid-Wales)


Radnorshire
…
…
…
…
3


Montgomeryshire
…
…
…
4
* 13


Denbighshire
…
…
…
…
26
8


Caernarvonshire
…
…
…
23
—
4


Cardiganshire
…
…
…
…
3
*4
—


Carmarthenshire
…
…
…
45
141


Flintshire
…
…
…
…
42
7
28


Glamorganshire
…
…
…
…
70
—
320


Merionethshire
…
…
…
…
8
9
75


Monmouthshire
…
…
…
…
90
4
53


Pembrokeshire
…
…
…
…
7
4
—


County Boroughs:





Cardiff
…
…
…
…
66
15
26


Merthyr Tydfil
…
…
…
…
21
—
20


Newport
…
…
…
…
42
13
28


Swansea
…
…
…
…
103
—
—


TOTALS
…
…
559
70
717


* Joint Committees under Section 7 of the Eire Services Act, 1947.


†Combined Police Authority.




National Hospital Service Reserve.


| Figures for the National Hospital Service Reserve are not available for counties and county boroughs. The total number of persons recruited to the Reserve in Wales between 15th November, 1949, and the end of January, 1950, was 152, representing 19 trained members and 133 nursing auxiliaries.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (SALE)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that metal knuckledusters, coshes and other offensive weapons are freely sold in a number of stores and shops; and whether he will make it a penal offence either to sell or have possession of such weapons.

Mr. Ede: It is an offence under the existing law to be armed with an offensive weapon with intent to commit any felonious act, and in certain other circumstances. I am considering if it is possible to strengthen the law, but many of the articles employed as weapons have legitimate uses, and the problem of definition presents difficulties. Some of the most formidable weapons are home-made or improvised.

Sir J. Lucas: While not going so far as the humanitarians like Professor Joad, who advocates painless destruction of all armed bandits, would the right hon.

Gentleman enforce the law far more strongly than it is being enforced at present?

Mr. Ede: I am making every effort to see that the law is enforced, and among the things I have under consideration for improving the position is the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Would my right hon. Friend consider banning the sale of double - bladed sheath daggers to children?

Mr. Ede: That is exactly one of the things that presents the difficulty of definition.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What about knuckledusters?

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Lord President of the Council whether space will be allocated in the Festival of Britain Exhibition to the display of


British pottery; and whether sufficient decorated pottery of good quality will be available for the catering establishments attached to the Exhibition.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Pottery of various kinds will appear in those sections of the Festival Exhibition on the South Bank which deal with power and production, the home, new schools, character and tradition, and the seaside, and also in the Dome of Discovery. The pottery will take its place in these sections, and there will be no space allocated to pottery on its own. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Board of Trade have agreed that decorated pottery may be used in the Exhibition catering establishments.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Requisitioned Land (Release)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how much land was being farmed by county agricultural executive committees on 1st January, 1949, and 1st January, 1950; and how much of this committee land he intends shall be handed back to private occupation by the end of this year.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Committees were farming 212,505 acres on 1st January, 1949, and 156,783 acres on 1st January, 1950. Of the latter, 111,513 acres are under requisition by my Department. About one-third of this area will be released this year, while most of the remainder, which consists largely of land which was formerly non-agricultural, will be released in 1951 or 1952. The other 45,270 acres is land owned or under requisition by other Departments. Its future has still to be settled, but release of about 1,000 acres is likely during this year.

Mr. Hurd: In view of the heavy losses resulting from this type of farming, will the Minister now make up his mind to wind up this enterprise at the end of this year?

Mr. Williams: The Minister has already made up his mind to do the right thing with land under requisition.

North-West Lancashire

Mr. Prescott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the farming future of North-West Lancashire lies mainly with pigs, poultry and dairy farming; and what steps he is proposing to take to further increased production.

Mr. T. Williams: The farming of many parts of the United Kingdom rests largely on dairy farming, pigs, and poultry, or some combination of these. Most of the activities of my Department are devoted in one way or another to increasing production in these branches of agriculture, and I would particularly refer the hon. Member to my announcements about feedingstuffs on 16th March, and about future prices on 23rd March. I believe that farmers in North-West Lancashire are receiving their due share of assistance and encouragement.

Smallholdings, Dorset

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the number of applicants since 1945 for county council smallholdings in Dorset up to the last day available; how many have been satisfied; how many are still on the waiting list; and how many of these are ex-Service men.

Mr. T. Williams: One hundred and sixty-seven applications were received by the Dorset County Council between 1st October, 1945, and 30th September, 1949. During that period 27 applicants were settled on smallholdings falling vacant, and at the end of the period, after allowing for withdrawals, 94 applicants remained on the waiting list. Fifty-one of these are ex-Service men.

Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he proposes to take to reduce this long waiting list?

Mr. Williams: All smallholding authorities have been acquainted with the fact that Part N of the 1947 Act came into operation on 1st October last year.

Sheep, Dorset

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total number of sheep in Dorset on 4th June, 1939, and on 4th June, 1949.

Mr. T. Williams: There were 150,000 sheep on the former date, and 46,000 on the latter.

Farm Animals (Diseases)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is his estimate of the present annual loss caused to this country by disease among farm animals; and what steps are being taken to expedite the development of the veterinary services with a view to reducing this toll.

Mr. T. Williams: No recent estimate of the annual loss caused by animal disease is available but in their second report, issued in 1944, the Committee on Veterinary Education in Great Britain quoted an estimate of £30 million per annum. As to the second part of the Question, one of the most important steps to improve the facilities for veterinary education and to increase the flow of graduates into the veterinary profession has been the passing of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1948. In addition, facilities for veterinary research and the various services and schemes provided or operated by my Department are being expanded as rapidly as circumstances permit.

Farm Workers' Houses

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many farm workers' houses in England and Wales, respectively, have been built with grant aid under the Hill Farming Act.

Mr. T. Williams: Approval has been given to the erection of 28 new cottages under hill farming improvement schemes in England. Of these one has been completed and three are under construction. In addition, three have been provided by the conversion of existing buildings. The corresponding figures for Wales are 17 approved for erection, one completed and four under construction. Most of the work on cottages in hill farming improvement schemes is on the repair and modernisation of existing cottages rather than on the erection of new ones.

Mr. Vane: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a pathetic result, bearing in mind the present need of houses, and does he not now see that he made a mistake when he came to Committee and excluded cottages let on service tenancies from grant aid under this Act?

Mr. Williams: I do not think I made any mistake when I said that any new house for which a Government grant is provided shall not become a tied house.

Meteorological Service

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Air Meteorological Broadcasting Service on 1,224 metres has recently been abandoned; and, in view of the importance of that service to agriculturists and horticulturists in all parts of the United Kingdom, whether he will initiate conversations with the British Broadcasting Corporation to have a comparable broadcasting service reinstated on the Home Service.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware that the Air Ministry Meteorological Service which was on 1,210 metres wavelength has been abandoned under the Copenhagen plan. The "Airmet" weather forecasts were of great value to agriculturists, horticulturists and fishermen, and I understand that discussions are taking place with a view to finding a new wavelength for this service. My Department is also in correspondence with the British Broadcasting Corporation about the possibility of including a late evening weather forecast in their programmes.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the great inconvenience caused by the withdrawal of this meteorological service, will the Minister undertake to try to secure a decision at an early date?

Mr. Williams: As I have said, we are in touch with the British Broadcasting Corporation.

GOVERNMENT (ADVERSE VOTE)

Mr. Churchill (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make upon the Parliamentary occurrence last night.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It was quite obvious that in the conditions obtaining in the present House of Commons, there always was the possibility of the Government being defeated on a particular Division. The Government are in the position of a Government that has to be constantly on the watch all the time. Its Members have to be there. On the other hand, the position of the Opposition is that at any time they can direct an attack. Last night there was a Debate on the Adjournment. I think the Adjournment was taken in order to


give the greatest scope to the Opposition for their speeches rather than taking the Debate on the specific matter of the Consolidated Fund. Towards the end of that Debate it was intimated that there was to be a Division.
I understand that everything had been admirably arranged, as one would expect from an experienced strategist like the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). The troops were kept more or less in ambush. There was no great strength in the front line, but, at any rate, transport had been provided, and at about 9·30 there was a great accession of motor transport into Palace Yard. I quite agree that the Government forces ought to have been in full strength—I regret that they were not—and the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was able to score a success.
This was, I thought, very reminiscent of past tactics. I must say I found a certain incompatibility in that action with an extremely statesmanlike speech which was made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) a few days ago, and indeed with the general tone which was taken by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in what I thought was a very admirable speech.
We now have to consider the consequences of that action. I have refreshed my mind by referring to a Debate which will be remembered, I expect, by the noble Lord who is the Father of the House, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. That was the occasion of the defeat of Mr. Balfour's Government in July, 1905.

Earl Winterton: I was still at school.

The Prime Minister: The noble Lord is losing his memory. He was a contemporary of mine at Oxford in those days. Whether or not he behaved as a schoolboy is another matter. In fact, if I am not wrong, he was returned to this House in 1904, and this event occurred in 1905. In any event, I am quite right about the right hon. Member for Woodford because he, having recently left the Conservative Party and joined the Liberal Party, took a very prominent part in rubbing it in on his late leader, Mr. Balfour.
I considered it, however, not so much from the point of view of personalities but from the point of view of constitutional doctrine which was debated for some time. As far as I could gather the upshot of the whole matter was that action on these Debates was determined by time, by circumstances and by the subject of the Debates. In the case of 1905 there was a Government with a nominally large majority that had lost a great number of by-elections, that had lost very prominent and promising Members like the right hon. Member for Woodford, and was tottering to its fall.
On this occasion we have a Government that has been recently returned with a small majority at a General Election, and as I understand the general view was that this Government, having undertaken the burden of governing with a small majority, should carry on, it is a matter for the Opposition to choose on what points they should challenge them. Last night was obviously not a major occasion. It was a vote on an Adjournment, and in those conditions certainly I do not intend to regard that as a Vote of Censure on the Government. On any occasion if that should be done we should be prepared to meet it, but as conditions are the Government propose to carry on.

Mr. Churchill: May I express to the Prime Minister our thanks for the very full and careful statement that he has made and for his lengthy, though not apparently particularly accurate, researches into the precedents of 45 years ago. We express our obligation to him for having taken so much trouble on a matter raised by the Opposition, and I should like also to congratulate him upon the great joy and relief which his remarks have given to the party behind him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us about the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 3RD APRIL—Consideration of a Motion relating to Private Members' time after Easter;
Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.
TUESDAY, 4TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Distribution of Industry Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
WEDNESDAY, 5TH APRIL—Supply (9th alloted Day). It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1950–51. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is calling attention to the development of joint consultation in industry.
THURSDAY, 6TH APRIL—It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. and Questions will be taken until 12 noon. Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 18th April.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME

Mr. Morrison: I have a statement to make about Private Members' time. In asking the House to agree to the Motion to take the whole time of the House until Easter, the Government undertook to discuss through the usual channels the arrangements to be made for Private Members' time after the Easter Recess. Those discussions have now taken place and I am in a position to inform the House of the result.
Owing to the late date of the opening of the Session it is felt that there will not be time for the consideration of Private Members' Bills. Accordingly, the Government will propose that no Private Members' Bills be presented during the present Session. Five Fridays will, however, be allocated for the consideration of Private Members' Motions, and their precedence on these days will be decided by ballot taken in the House in the usual way. It will be convenient for the House to know that we suggest that Fridays 5th, 12th and 19th May and 16th and 23rd June be set apart for this purpose. The Government also undertake to allocate three ordinary days before the end of July for Debates on socialised industries.
I hope that these arrangements will commend themselves to the House in the unusual circumstances of the present Session. The Motion to give effect to the proposals about Private Members' Motions will be moved at the beginning of Business on Monday, 3rd April, as I have already announced.

Mr. Eden: I think we must agree with the Lord President that the circumstances of the present Session are certainly unusual. Many of my hon. Friends would have liked more Private Members' time, but in the circumstances, so far as the legislative programme is concerned, I think we agree that at this late stage of the Session the difficulties are admittedly formidable. In the circumstances, therefore, we would not propose to oppose the Motion, although we wish to put it on record that we would not regard this as a precedent for any future session.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the ballot will be taken for the Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Morrison: I think it is a fortnight before the days upon which the Debates on the Motions take place.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Lord President will remember that in the days when we last had Private Members' Motions the practice was to have two Motions on each day. May I ask whether that is the intention now or whether it is proposed to have one Motion on each Friday?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that these are, of course, Fridays, while those other days, to which he referred, were full days and rather longer days than now. However, it is intended that arrangements will be made so that there will be tabled more than one Motion for a day, and if it so happens that the first Motion is dealt with expeditiously, there is no reason why the second Motion should not come on and we can see what happens to it when its time is Up.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the reintroduction of the system allowing hon. Members to introduce Bills under the Ten-Minute Rule?

Mr. Morrison: We have thought about that, but honestly I do not think it would be of great value because they could not very well march on from that point. It is liable to take up—it can take up—half an hour of the time of the House which, thereby, would be cut out of the Debates. I am sure that that would irritate hon. Members after a little while.

Sir H. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider not debarring


hon. Members from opportunities of presenting Bills, because it often happened that a Bill passed through every stage in the House without occupying any time whatsoever?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, that is the legislative sausage machine at its worst. I am surprised at the hon. Member advocating legislation with nobody saying a word about it. It is a shocking idea.

Sir W. Smithers: What about the guillotine?

Sir H. Williams: It has been done and has had the complete approval of the right hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues.

Mr. Morrison: I am ashamed of myself, if that is true. I do not recall it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what will happen to Private Members' Bills which are started in another place? Will that be possible and, if so, will he give time in this House for such stages as need to be taken?

Mr. Morrison: I have no control over another place, as the House well knows. I have my hands full with this one. Obviously it is possible for such legislation to march to a point in another place, but if it is the case that the House of Commons is debarring itself from promoting Private Members' legislation, I think it would be wrong for me to give an undertaking on the part of the Government that we can pick up Private Members' legislation from another place.

Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform us when he proposes to put on the Order Paper his Motion to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the case of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway)?

Mr. Morrison: We expect to put it on the Order Paper by Monday.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — FILM QUOTAS (AMENDMENT ORDER)

3.47 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
That the Cinematograph Films (Quotas) Amendment Order, 1950, dated 10th March,. 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
I am sure that the Order which I am asking the House to approve will be received with regret in all parts of the House. It really provides recognition of the disappointment of the hopes we had in all quarters of the House about the maintenance and increase of British production of first feature films of a quality adequate to justify their being made compulsory for exhibition under the Cinematograph Films Act of 1948. That Act gave power to the Board of Trade to fix the quota, subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses, and it provided that any changes in the quota have to be laid before Parliament and approved six months before the date on which they came into effect. This Order, therefore, covers the period beginning on 1st October next. It amends the previous Order which was approved by this House a year ago and its effect is to reduce the quota for first feature films from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. The quota for the supporting programme is unchanged at 25 per cent.
The Act provides that before the Board of Trade make an Order under this Section I have to consult the Cinematograph Films Council and consider its advice in the matter. The House will therefore wish to know—I am not sure whether the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) does—something of the advice which the Council tendered on this subject. The first thing I have to report is that the Council showed much greater unanimity on the size of the quota than in the two previous years. In 1948 it was almost equally divided, the


producers' and exhibitors' representatives taking sharply opposed views—50 per cent. was advocated by the producers and 25 per cent. by the exhibitors. Independent members a year ago would have supported a quota of 33⅓ per cent. In both years, therefore, because of the division of opinion on the Council, I had to form a view—and so did the House—without much assistance from the Council.
This year the figure of 30 per cent. was recommended by the Cinematograph Films Council by a large majority. It is no secret that the producers and exhibitors had discussed the question together beforehand and reached a compromise at 30 per cent. This figure was also considered reasonable by most of the independent members who were present. It is equally no secret, since it was made the matter of a public statement, that the most active opposition came from the representative of the Association of Cinematograph and Allied Technicians who thought that the Council had not properly considered the evidence, and also that the compromise between the producers and exhibitors was not in the interests of British production and reflected the present undue influence of exhibiting interests in the British Film Producers' Association. I felt it was right to bring the views of the Council before the House.
I feel that I should be getting somewhat out of Order if I were to use this Motion as an opportunity for discussing the general position of the film industry, as the House does from time to time, but I should like to give the House an explanation of the figures on which the revised quota is based. The Film Producers' Association submitted to the Films Council a statement of the answers received to a questionnaire which they had circulated to producers. This gave a total of 106 to 108 films which producers thought might be available for release during the period. After careful examination of the films in the list and the probable quality of the films involved, the Council thought that a figure of 50 to 60 films could be taken as a fair estimate.
This figure of 50 to 60 has to be set against the number of films required. The chief factor in the distribution of important feature films is the "general release" through each of the main

Circuits, odeon, Gaumont-British, and A.B.C., of one first feature film each week. This means that the three circuits require between them a total of 156 first feature films, British and American together, each year. Most other exhibitors will generally prefer to play the same films as the circuits where they can get them, and where cinemas are in competition with the circuits they are allowed by the Act a lower quota.
For computing the quota, therefore, it is generally fair to take, under existing booking arrangements, and leaving Sundays out of account for this purpose, 156 first features as the annual requirement of all the principal cinemas on a six-day exhibition routine that are liable to the full quota rate.
Most of the other situations are taken care of by the quota relief arrangements under Section 4 of the 1948 Act, and for cases of real hardship there is always the provision in Section 13 of the 1938 Act, under which defaulters can plead "circumstances beyond their control." The British first feature quota percentage should, therefore, be based on the probable number of British first feature films available in relation to this overall requirement of 156 films a year.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and I promise not to do so again, but before he leaves this question, would he give the House some information on this point? How many defaults have there been in respect of first feature films which have not been, so to speak, "O.K.'d" by the appropriate authority.

Mr. Wilson: I shall come to that point in a moment.

Earl Winterton: Thank you very much.

Mr. Wilson: On this basis of 156 films, the number required to honour a quota of 30 per cent. would be 48. The Films Council's estimate of 50 to 60 British first features seems a not unreasonable one in the light of our present knowledge of the prospects of the producers concerned, and it does give a certain freedom of choice, which is important in the interests of efficient production, the more so when one has regard to some of the quality factors which have crept into film production in the last year or two.
The House will naturally wonder how far it ought to pay attention to the


estimates of the Council, and how accurate the Council has been in the past. In fact it has been extremely accurate. Last year its estimate for the current quota year was 74 films, and this estimate will probably just about be realised—almost exactly; although of course, it allows no margin of choice as probably 10 of the films will hardly justify showing on a nation wide basis. In the previous year the Council's views of the number of films likely was also highly accurate.
The fixing of the quota, which this House is called upon to do today, always involves something of a dilemma. It is, of course, extremely important to maintain a fairly high quota as an incentive, which it undoubtedly has been to British production; and this is particularly important now in view of the changed position of the circuits, because the circuits—at least the circuits owned by the Rank organisation—have now no longer the same interest in displaying films produced in this country as they had when they themselves were a producing unit. Therefore, it is important that the quota should be fixed reasonably high, but it is also important in the interests of the quota legislation as a whole to fix the quota at a level where we can enforce a much better standard of compliance with it than we have had in recent years.
The problem has been made considerably easier by the special quota relief provisions of Sections 4 and 13 of the 1948 Act, but it is not possible to remove all anomalies by legislative definition, and there are always bound to be some cinemas less favourably placed than others for honouring the statutory quota. The dilemma is as to the size of the quota which should be introduced. We have now, however, for the first time, experience of a full year's working under the 1948 Act, and, perhaps, I should give the House some account of our quota year 1948 to 1949. This takes up the point the noble Lord has in mind.
In that year, with the first feature quota of 45 per cent.—a figure which I proposed to this House and which was much criticised at the time—on the calculation I have made 71 British first features were needed during that year. The number actually shown on the three circuits was 74, suggesting that I had not been extravagant in proposing the quota for the year. The 74 included two re-issues.

That meant there were 72 new films against a requirement of 71, which meant that pretty well every new film of anything like first feature standard—undoubtedly, there were some films of a very indifferent standard during that year—got a circuit booking, and the average booking actually achieved by British circuits was 47½ per cent.—in excess of the statutory quota. The average achieved over the country as a whole was 37 per cent. of the quota prescribed, after allowing for reliefs given in respect of cinemas not in a position to carry out the quota. It is certainly true that in that year the total amount of screen time devoted to British feature films was very much higher than it has been before, and the main purpose of the quota legislation was in that year, at any rate, fulfilled.
But there is a point we cannot ignore. There were 1,474 first feature quota defaults. This is a high figure taken by itself, and may give a misleading impression, because a great many of those defaults will qualify as excusable under Section 13 of the 1948 Act, and the significant figure should really include only those defaulters who have not sufficient excuse and fall to be considered for possible prosecution. They are now being examined. The House will agree that the number is higher than is healthy for effective administration of the Act, and higher than the House had in mind when the quota Act was passed. It is a fact that the quota has turned out to be too high a quota for some of the exhibitors who have to change their programmes twice a week.
In these quota Debates we always hear from hon. Gentlemen from north of the border about the special position of some of the quota exhibitors in isolated parts of the country who need to change their programmes rather frequently to maintain a clientele. I think that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is capable of great eloquence on that subject himself. Therefore, we have to keep in mind the question of the effectiveness of the quota and the extent to which it can be enforced, and, for my part, I should like to see the quota much more effectively enforced, and that whatever figure is selected should be effective and, apart from exceptional circumstances, binding on all the cinemas in the country.
Then, as part of the quota procedure, we have an additional instrument, the selection committee procedure, which can be made to supplement the quota to the extent of six films a year on each circuit. The selection committee was, of course, designed for a rather special situation, where it was thought that the circuit would have so many of their own films made by themselves that they would not need to show any independently produced films in order to meet their quota. We can use the selection committee procedure now in the new situation to meet the new difficulty created by the diminishing interest of these circuits, particularly the Rank organisation, in British production.
I want to say a brief word about the supporting programme because I know the interest that many hon. Members have taken in the special problems and special difficulties of the producers of second feature, short and documentary films. We had a long discussion about their position when the Films Bill went through this House. This quota is always very difficult to calculate because of the wide variations in the composition of the supporting programme between one cinema and another. The chief element in the supporting programme of most cinemas is, of course, the second feature, which is usually an American production. A high quota figure for the supporting programme can only be met by substituting for these American second features a substantial proportion of British films of the same length, which, I am sure, we should all like to do on production grounds and quality grounds, too. The supply of British films of that length is rather small and is unlikely to increase much so long as there is so little money to be earned on the supporting programme.
The supporting programme quota has been 25 per cent. for the last two years, and this figure seems to represent the best compromise between the need to encourage British supporting film production and the limit to which American second features can be effectively replaced by British production. The supporting programme quota actually achieved during the first year of the new Act was 27 per cent., but, here again, there were 1,381 defaults. The supporting programme producers have asked for the quota to remain at 25 per cent. next year, and the

Films Council were unanimous in endorsing this figure. I have received in my correspondence, and I understand that a considerable number of hon. Members have received, letters from local associations of cinema exhibitors calling on them to support a lower quota than 25 per cent., but I should point out that the Films Council were unanimous on this figure of 25 per cent., and I am certain that we should be wrong to lower it.
As I have said, this reduction in the first feature quota now before the House is a recognition of the fact, which I am sure is regretted by all hon. Members, that there has been a reduction in the volume of film production. The reasons for the special difficulties of the industry were debated in this House—I think it was almost the last full debate in this House before the old Parliament disappeared. We were all concerned then at the declining level of production, and the changing prospects in the industry due to the change of policy on the part of the Rank organisation. In the later war-time years, and in the years since the war, so high a proportion of the production potential of the industry has been bound up with the fortunes of the Rank organisation that the successive quota provisions have been determined to a large extent by the production programme of that group.
For the quota year 1948–49, Mr. Rank said that he planned to release about 60 films, and he was a warm adherent of a 50 per cent. quota. I fixed it at 45, and that was endorsed by the House, but at one stage he said that a 60 per cent. quota was possible, at least for his own cinemas. For the quota year 1949–50, he planned to release about 22 films—a big fall—and this year, as the House knows, his production programme is very small. To judge from a recent report of a statement which he made to reporters on the "Queen Mary," the prospects of any further increase in production by that group, even if his hopes on certain fiscal matters are realised, seem rather small. Our hopes for raising production and a steadily rising quota have been disappointed; and this had been very largely due to the sudden difficulty in which the principal producing organisation in the industry has found itself, and to the effect of this difficulty on its production policy.
During the past year-and-a-half, as the House well knows, it has been the policy


of the Government and of the National Film Finance Corporation set up by the Government to endeavour to offset this decline in the production programme of one big group by building up the production of other units, including many of the producers who for one reason or another have left the Rank organisation. The result has been an increase in the number of films made by independent producers with financial assistance from the National Film Finance Corporation, and during the last twelve months that Corporation has been concerned with something like 50 per cent. of the total output of feature films in this country.
Not only have the Corporation enabled the British Lion Film Corporation to make possible the continuance of a considerable volume of independent production within their own group, but they have also aided a number of comparatively new and small independent producers—and hon. Members in all parts of the House, including the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) last December paid tribute to the work of the National Film Finance Corporation in saving the industry from what would have been almost total collapse.

Earl Winterton: May I ask one further question? My excuse for doing so is that the right hon. Gentleman has devoted most of his speech up to now to the Rank organisation. Would it be in order in this Debate for him to tell us exactly what is the relation of the Films Council to films produced by Sir Henry Korda, and how much has been spent—this is not a hostile question—and how much recovered?

Mr. Wilson: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to Sir Alexander Korda. I spent a very small part of my speech in dealing with the Rank organisation, as the right hon. Gentleman would have realised if he had listened to the first third of my speech, when he was engaged in conversation with the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove. I said, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that because of the position of the Rank organisation in production in this country since the end of the war, the quota we are discussing now depends to a very considerable extent on the production programme

of the Rank organisation. For reasons which the noble Lord knows more about than I do, the Rank organisation suddenly found itself faced with difficulties and stopped production.

Earl Winterton: That is not peculiar to the Rank organisation.

Mr. Wilson: I said that it has been the attitude of the Government, accepted by the House, to build up production outside the Rank organisation. I think that more than a year before the publication of the balance sheet of the Rank organisation, which the noble Lord knows all about, a considerable number of producers had left the Rank organisation, long before, I think, there was any suggestion about the cause of the difficulties of which we have heard so much recently. Many of them were associated with the British Lion Group and there was a great danger, because of the drying up of the finances of that group and other film productions, that we should see no production in this country.
In those circumstances, the National Film Finance Corporation was set up. I have been asked by the noble Lord what is the association between the British Lion Group and the National Film Finance Corporation; I do not think that he meant to say the Films Council. I think the best answer to that is that the noble Lord should perhaps await the first annual report of the Film Finance Corporation, which will be available a very few days after the end of their first financial year, which is 31st March. Plans are in hand for the Film Finance Corporation to show commendable speed in bringing out their report and making it available to this House at the end of the first year. I am not sure whether the noble Lord and his colleagues will show the same speed in bringing out the Rank organisation balance sheet at the end of their financial year. It is certainly nice to find the Film Finance Corporation setting such a fine example to the industry in this connection.

Earl Winterton: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman meant that good-humouredly, but he should guard his words a little more carefully, because that reference contained at any rate an implication of dishonesty against the Rank organisation.

Mr. Wilson: Oh, no, Sir.

Earl Winterton: Yes, it did.

Mr. Wilson: While meaning it good-humouredly, I also assert that the Rank organisation takes a fairly long time to produce its accounts. I do not think anybody would deny that; and there is great interest in the country about it. But I am absolutely amazed to hear the noble Lord suggest that I implied any dishonesty.

Earl Winterton: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman holding up his hands in horror at me. This is an imputation against an organisation with which I am connected, and I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the accounts have always been produced in accordance with company law, and on average quite as quickly as the accounts of any other company.

Mr. Wilson: I never said anything to the contrary. I was talking about the time. I am aware that there is always a certain interest on the part of the Opposition about the delay of which they sometimes complain—and have every right to complain—in regard to the time taken by nationalised bodies of various kinds in bringing their accounts before the House. The noble Lord put to me a question about the loan to Sir Alexander Korda, and I thought it right to say that he will get the full information about that when this report is published; but to anticipate any criticism from hon. Members opposite, who might think it would take months to get the report, I said that it would be available in a very few days after the end of the financial year, and in that respect it is certainly very much quicker than the other organisation referred to. I cannot see in that any imputation of dishonesty.
I should have thought that my reference was proof of the great care and scrupulous attention which the Rank organisation give to getting their figures accurate. It does take time to get figures accurate, especially in the film world, and I am amazed to hear the noble Lord take up this attitude. If he still thinks my reference to the question of the time taken to produce accounts implies anything apart from what I have said, I quite freely give him a full assurance on that point, in order to get on with the Debate.
Not the least of the contributions—and this is extremely relevant to the question—which the Film Finance Corporation has been making to building up a sounder and more efficient industry has been the influence it has exercised in enforcing economies in production, and in improving the business efficiency and accounting procedure—I am not talking about honesty here—of a considerable section of the industry. One sign of the times—I think an encouraging sign—has been the fact that the recent film "Morning Departure," which was widely acclaimed on its first showings, and which was largely financed by the Corporation after a failure to obtain finance through normal channels, was produced on a very modest budget—much smaller than the figures we have been accustomed to hearing about in this House and outside it in the past few years. This is a film which I think the noble Lord's organisation is distributing.

Earl Winterton: That is right.

Mr. Wilson: But we have a long way still to go to build up a film production industry on a scale adequate to meet what I am sure are the views of this House as to the needs of our cinemas for British films. It is my view—and I think it is the view of many who have been concerned with the problem—that one of the limiting factors has been the supply of enough directors and producers capable of producing films of the right quality and at the right cost. While that is a view generally held, it is certainly true that there is a very considerable number of technicians, producers and directors whose records show them capable of such production, who are not at present engaged on production. To mobilise them is a question, of course, of finance and of promotion.
In this connection perhaps I should tell the House that I have recently authorised the National Finance Film Corporation to make loans to co-operative and nonprofit distributing companies, even though there will be no private linking together with the N.F.F.C. finance. In any such case, of course, the National Film Finance Corporation will expect the remuneration of the higher paid personnel, apart from reasonable living expenses, to be deferred and paid out of the profits of the films.
This means that the services of the National Film Finance Corporation are available to a wider range of independent producers than hitherto for projects of the right kind, and I hope that full advantage will be taken of them. At the moment the limitation on the number of films started, so far as the National Film Finance Corporation is concerned, seems to be the number of worth-while scripts coming along to them for finance.
Therefore, anything that is done to get over that bottleneck will immediately affect the number of films, and therefore the position of the quota. The extent to which this is all going to be possible, the extent to which this industry will be considered attractive for finance, involves many questions of a very wide nature, including distribution facilities, the problem of the circuits in the new situation, as well as all the issues raised by the Plant Report, and I think I should be getting very wide of the Motion on the Order Paper if I were to attempt to go into them all.

Mr. Shepherd: Before the right hon. Gentleman departs from the activities of the National Film Finance Corporation, can he tell us what has happened financially to the films which have been partly or wholly financed? Is he able to say that any of those films have got back the initial cost, or are likely to get it back?

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Corporation was set up only a year ago. I think he knows something of the period of gestation in the film world, which is of somewhat elephantine dimensions, and he probably knows something of the delays involved before money starts coming back. Since the financing of individual films as opposed to financing distribution companies, has been normally on the basis of providing the end risk money, naturally the longest possible period elapses before that money is available back to the Film Finance Corporation. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that some money has already come back; not very much. He would hardly expect it in 12 months in the film industry. I would ask him to await the first report of the Corporation in order to form a view about that. Perhaps the

noble Lord could give him some evidence and a lot of useful instruction about the normal period required before the Rank organisation gets its money back on a film financed by them.

Earl Winterton: Yes, and I also know quite a lot, which I will not give away in this House, about what has happened in connection with the question put by my hon. Friend. I think that in about a year's time the House will be very interested to see the results.

Mr. Wilson: The House will have a chance to be interested in it considerably before then. Since the noble Lord is getting such a nose for financial matters in film production we shall look forward to hearing from him some time very full accounts of all the financial projects undertaken by the Rank organisation, for which he bears such a responsibility.
Let me now refer to another more encouraging, and judging by the attitude the noble Lord is taking, less controversial, fact. It is a bright feature in the present otherwise somewhat dismal situation that the general run of British film production in the past 12 months has shown a great recovery in quality. Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House—the noble Lord and the right hon. Member for Aldershot on a number of occasions—have always stressed the fact that without quality the British film industry would be doomed.
It is certainly a fact that a year or more ago there was an alarming run of not very good films which did nothing to raise the prestige of our films abroad, and which caused economic problems for exhibitors and producers alike. No small part of the economic difficulties from which the industry has been suffering in the past 12 months was due to this temporary loss of quality—and I think it is only a temporary loss—as Mr. Rank himself made clear in his annual statement to the Odeon shareholders.
It is encouraging that amongst films generally released during the last six months there have been a number of outstanding box office successes, such as "The Third Man," "The Blue Lamp," and many others; it is always difficult to select one or two, and a little invidious. Recently there does seem to have been some general improvement in the quality


of British feature films. It is on that that the future of the industry depends. It is on the maintenance of quality and all that can be done through the National Films Finance Corporation and other organisations, the British Lion Group, which the noble Lord does not seem to like, the Rank organisation, if it is coming back into production, and the other bodies that the fate of the size of the quota we may or not be debating a year from now depends.

4.20 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: I have not the special knowledge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and consequently I speak only as a consumer of these articles; but it is, perhaps, the consumer interest which is the most important in this Debate. I am not specially interested in, nor do I think the House is, the rather meticulous examination of the affairs of one particular company which the right hon. Gentleman undertook after he had explained that his speech was not dealing with the Rank organisation. The earlier part of his speech may not have dealt with the Rank organisation, but after that, it was difficult to find that he was speaking about anything else. Therefore, I will speak more about the earlier stages of his speech, when he was dealing with matters of interest to the House in general, than about those later stages when he seemed to be indulging in some sort of sound track with my right hon. Friend.
We are all in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a disappointing step he has brought before the House today. We have debated this matter on more than one occasion—I have taken part in Debates myself—and the hope of the House was that an expansion rather than a contraction in the production and quality of British films was under way. It is true to say that we have supported the Government in their steps in the past, and I think we shall continue to do so, because the discussions in the last Parliament ran quite across the benches and not up and down the Floor of the House. Many of those who took part in the previous Debates are no longer with us, but there are enough left to recall how sometimes the most acid discussions were between the Front and back benches on

either side, and not necessarily between the two sides of the House.
I do not think it can be denied that the discussion today is not so much between the two sides of the House as between the right hon. Gentleman and the point of view represented in the memorandum of the Association of Cinematograph and Allied Technicians. I have a respect for that organisation. Its president happens to be a close relation of mine by marriage, and, even odder, he is a close personal friend of mine. I certainly get a certain amount of gossip about the affairs of the film industry, and I am not unacquainted with the arguments put forward here. I put it no higher than that.
It is true to say that what we have to consider today are the results of the general policy of the Government, because no one can deny that there is, as the technicians say, much distress and unemployment in the industry. It is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, largely because it has proved impossible to maintain the figure, or, indeed, either of the figures which were previously asked for by the right hon. Gentleman. We have here in the successive Orders the whole chronicle of the matter: the first laying down a quota of 45 per cent.: the next saying that the Order shall be amended by substituting 40 per cent. for 45 per cent., and the next saying that there shall be substituted 30 per cent. for 40 per cent.
This is the result in an industry in which the Government have taken a great share, and to which the right hon. Gentleman has devoted a great deal of his personal attention. I am reminded of an epigram of Mae West in one of her films. Her chauffeur was struggling to get her car going, and Mae West indignantly rebuked him. Whereupon he told her, "Well, madam, I am doing my best," to which she replied, "Then do your worst because your best is awful." We are rather inclined to think sometimes that if the right hon. Gentleman were to do his worst, it might be better than the results he is now achieving.
The fundamental fact is that attendances have been falling. To take the Entertainments Duty returns as the simplest criterion of that, we find that receipts in the 10 months to 1949 were £30,670,000, and the receipts for 1948


were £33,070,000. The result of the close attention of the right hon. Gentleman is, at any rate, coincidental with a 7 per cent. drop in the returns, and a drop of £4,500,000 in the net receipts of the cinemas and £2,400,000 in the tax revenue. It is true to say that this tendency may be arrested; that an improvement in the quality of the films, which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and perhaps a deterioration in the quality of the weather may combine to improve these returns. But there are the returns, and they are rather sinister because, of course, they reflect a falling off in the yield of this milch cow. It looks as if it has been suffering from a practice common in the Hebrides of being bled as well as milked, a process that is not attended by any permanent improvement in the health of the cow. The Treasury have, in fact, had to return some of the funds by means of a blood transfusion to this milked and bleeding animal.
The figures the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned as being handed out by the National Film Finance Corporation have really to be deducted from the receipts of the Entertainments Duty. I do not think many of use believe that a very large proportion of this money will be seen again by the Treasury. I think the Corporation was entrusted with some £ 5 million, and my information is that something like £ 4,300,000 has already been exhausted and requests are being made for further sums. These are drafts on the receipts the Treasury have been obtaining from the industry. Although we cannot go into this in detail, it is really rather like "Hamlet" without the Prince to debate the parlous state of the industry without reference to the enormous drain—

Mr. Wyatt: Is it in order to discuss the Entertainments Duty as it affects the film industry in this Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): It can be used as a basis for finding out whether this Order should be approved or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I have no intention of debating it at length, but it certainly has a very close relation to the attendances. After all, it is the fall in

attendances we are discussing, and it is quite impossible to dicuss this and leave out the whole question of finance. It enters very closely into the discussion we are having today.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order. Would it, then, be reasonable to argue that a reduction in the Entertainments Duty might increase the attendances at the cinemas?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see why it should not be. I should like to hear the speech first, because the question is rather hypothetical.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: An attractive vista opens. I shall not, however, go very far down that attractive vista. I am glad to find that the interventions of the two Deputy-Speakers concerned have not at any rate had the effect of limiting my remarks. It is bad enough to compete with one Chair, but when Chairs begin to arise in unaccustomed quarters of the House, it becomes all the more difficult for any speaker.
The difficulty we are in is that the policy of the Minister cannot be that of following the box office returns downwards with successive reductions of the quota. We shall require to have a further examination of this problem by some procedure, which will allow a wider Debate at a very early date, and I trust that the President will be able to give us an assurance that some such occasion will arise. The President of the Board of Trade might come down to the House with a policy. After all, he called for the Plant Report and nothing was done.
The Plant Report definitely mentions and discusses many of the problems which we are discussing today and we hope that later on we will hear from the President of the Board of Trade—to whom I am sure the House will give leave to reply—or from some other Government speaker, a little more about their intentions with regard to the Plant Report or of giving the House facilities for debating the issues arising out of that Report. Without this we cannot deeply examine the problem which faces the House. What we all fear is that this may be a step in the downward direction. That is what the technicians and other people believe. It is thought that this will not arrest the decline but that it will continue, and to reduce the quota further and further is not the


way in which we will get what we all desire—a healthy and flourishing industry.
It was truly said by the President of the Board of Trade and stressed by my noble Friend, that it has been proved impossible to enforce this present quota. That is what some of us feared when previous Debates on this subject took place, and although it was very generously stated at the time that exemptions would be granted, to pass a law that certain things should be done and then mitigate it by saying, "If you can show good cause why you should not obey the law we shall let you off" tends to bring the whole thing into disrepute. The President mentioned the figure of 1,474 defaulters, and he went on to say that a great number of these people would get off when their cases were examined. But these cases have continued for a considerable time, and there is a threat of a prosecution hanging over each of these people. My information, for what it is worth, is that only a handful of these people, 1,400 in all, have been prosecuted. Practically speaking, no prosecutions have resulted. All that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, as I am sure the President will agree.
Another interesting fact is that the defaulters were mostly independent exhibitors. According to my information, 77 per cent. of the defaulters, or 1,135 cinemas out of 4,689 returns received by the Board of Trade, were independent exhibitors, who had not been able to obtain any quota of relief at all. Obviously some kind of clearing up of that situation is urgently needed. Part of the reason for passing the Order this afternoon is that it will bring the Statute more into correspondence with the facts of the case, which at present they simply do not meet at all. The 30 per cent. quota has been unanimously recommended by the Films Council, and for the first time—

Mr. H. Wilson: Not unanimously.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Not unanimously, I agree, for the technicians dissented, but the decision was reached with a much greater degree of unanimity than ever was achieved before. Also this proposal corresponds more closely with the figure mentioned by Lord Drogheda as the figure which he himself desired

to recommend in the early period. That figure was something much more like 33 per cent. than the figure ultimately passed by the President of the Board of Trade.
The exhibitors and producers have come together. I think that is a great improvement. I do not think it is sensible or even artistically right to omit the exhibitors or to brush aside their views, for, after all, they represent the box office, and the box office is the final acid test of this form of art, and, indeed, as I hope to show, of many forms of art. Who are we to denigrate the box office? We are here as a result of box office returns as declared by the sheriff. It is not for us to say that these returns should be brushed away in favour of some small minority. It would, no doubt, be very acceptable to those who did not secure a majority of the votes at the poll, but it would not be regarded as the most reasonable way of arriving at the verdict of the public. After all, the Entertainments Duty is the servant of the public and must commend itself to the public. The box office is a very important thing. It produced Shakespeare, and it will be a very long time before any committee or advisory body, however important, produces anything better than that.
It was said by the "Economist" that the agreement in the Films Council
reflects the losses which the film producing companies have made on their trading. The exhibiting interests of the major film producing groups have become more vital to them as their producing activities make losses and have to be cut down. The new decision of the Films Council seems to me an acknowledgement that the producing game, on the scale on which it has been played, is not worth the candle.
"Not worth the candle"—that is the rub. The fact is that the drain on the industry has proved greater than the industry is able to bear.
These figures bear very hardly on the exhibitors who change their programmes more frequently. The President of the Board of Trade said that I would no doubt display great eloquence on behalf of those north of the Border. It is not entirely or even by a majority a Scottish problem. Cinemas are not all luxurious halls which run their programmes for six days of the week. There are over 800 cinemas which change their programme three times a week, and certainly not more than 100 are in Scotland. Far and away the majority of these smaller


cinemas are—not to be too arrogant—in the adjacent part of the island. But there are 5,000 active cinemas in Great Britain, and only 800 have regular six-day programmes. Some 3,300 have three-day bookings and what they require is not merely an assortment of first feature films, but a choice of first feature films. It is not possible to absorb 100 per cent. of the output.
It is not alone that there is an artistic difference in the demands of the cinema-goers between one part of the country and another. The dockside of Glasgow is by no means the same as the suburban areas of some of the Thames-side towns. The dock populations do enjoy films more closely of the nature of the Wild West than they do of very artistic and interesting films of a mild character such as "Brief Encounter." Frankly, they are not interested in that kind of thing. One must allow a certain amount of latitude, which it has been found, under this high quota, impossible to provide.
The President of the Board of Trade gave very interesting figures about the number of first feature films which are likely to be produced at some time. They brought out vividly the impossibility of maintaining the quota as it has previously been set forth—I will not say enforced—and the great necessity of some such step as is now taking place. It will be necessary to allow the consuming public a greater choice in the fare which is being provided for it. That does mean, I fear, whether we like it or not, that out of the money paid by the consuming public a greater amount must be ploughed back into the industry and not removed in taxation.
I have had a long experience and a long connection with the non-profit-making side of entertainment. Believe me, it is almost impossible to forecast what the public will or will not absorb. I have had experience which runs back first to the year 1910, which is longer than I like to think about now, with the Repertory Theatre in Glasgow. Subsequently I had quite a considerable experience with John Grierson and Stephen Tallents in the early stages of British Documentary Films, and later with the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow, which is still running.
We cannot forecast by committees, or in any other way than by the box office,

what the public will enjoy. Time and again the public have accepted high-brow productions on which we all expected we should suffer a heavy loss, and have rejected popular stuff which we thought was the sort of thing which was much more to the public taste. I stil remember our sup-prise in the Repertory Theatre with John Masefield's play "The Tragedy of Nan," which suddenly turned out to be a box office rocket and which began to make money on a scale to which, up to that time, we had been total strangers. Quite recently, the Edinburgh Festival, as a matter of duty, put on a mediaeval morality play "The Three Estates." To their astonishment it became a best seller, partly due to its vigour and, one might say, to the somewhat bawdy nature of its language. The Renaissance or Middle Ages morality plays were often expressed in terms which would lead to the censor's coming down with a pretty heavy hand on them if they were written today.
I remember the films that we put on. There was one with John Grierson, who went down to a sheep farm which I know very well, and in a fortnight took a documentary. Under the title of "Shepherd's Spring" it was most popular and was eventually sold for £ 8,000, which was about half the value of the whole farm. I remember also how we tried out another film, "One Family," which had words by Rudyard Kipling and Buckingham Palace in its scenery. It was the greatest flop that you ever saw in your life. I do not believe that anybody ever looked at it twice.
We have to allow latitude and a margin in these things, and that cannot be done as long as working capital is continually removed for the benefit of the tax collector. The Plant Report indeed said all that, and more. They said about British first feature films:
Most exhibitors find themselves compelled to book almost all the British films, good, bad and indifferent, which are offered to them, if they are to comply with their statutory obligations. The public are not, however, compelled to go to see them, and box office takings record their discrimination.
This is the fundamental difficulty with which we are faced, and the difficulty which it is impossible to discuss at length this afternoon, but it should be referred to. I certainly consider that the attitude of the technicians is really defeatist. To say that we can only make the thing work


if the quota is not only maintained but is screwed up to yet higher levels is not in accordance with the facts, or with the facts as they should be.
Unless the entertainments industry is subject to the breath of competition from outside it will not progress and develop. The Russian Ballet ran for many years in this country before we were able to put on the British ballets which are now receiving the appreciation of artists all over the world. Russian films used to be one of the glories of the film industry. Deprived of competition from outside, it has steadily declined until, as we all know, a Russian film nowadays is not by any means an entertaining way of spending an afternoon. We must accept the provisions which the President of the Board of Trade puts before us now, but I still think that for a 2s. football seat to pay a 2d. tax and for a 2s. cinema seat to pay a 10½d. tax is not the sort of balance which will enable the industry to turn into the strong, flourishing and cultural, as well as entertaining, enterprise which we all desire.
The British film industry is sick. We are today discussing palliatives, but the radical remedy still has to be found. It cannot now be discussed, but it will have to be discussed, and soon, or else it will be found that in all these things we are merely throwing good money after bad.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. O'Brien: I think the House shares with the President of the Board of Trade his regret that this Order is necessary. I am not one of those who tell their friends, "I told you so," but let me tell the House something about a matter which should now be discussed. I was rebuked by my right hon. Friend for mentioning this matter in the previous Debate. Lord Drogheda the chairman of the Cinematograph Films Council, and I, were the only people on that council who supported a lower quota at the rather full meeting we had at that time, that is to say from 45 per cent. as it then was, to a lower figure. We were defeated, and 40 per cent. was agreed.
I warned the Board of Trade and other Members of the industry that a high quota could not be operated. Unlike many of those inside and outside this House who state cases in one form or another about the British film industry, I gave my reasons for my views and produced

arguments to support them. The brutal fact is that the entire system of quota has completely broken down in the British film industry. I will go so far as to say that a year from the operation of the proposed new Order even a 30 per cent. quota will not be attained. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that there was a time when Mr. Rank, Sir Alexander Korda and all the others were vying with each other on the Films Council and protesting against any comment or criticism that other than a 50 per cent. quota could be worked.
I recall the discussions within the industry and in the councils and the various committees we have in the industry. I recall that they were most enthusiastic and most optimistic that they could fulfil even a 50 per cent. quota. There were two or three of us, whose sanity at this late stage may be questioned because of our many years of service in the industry, who knew that such a quota could not be operated. We did not share the optimism of Mr. Rank and Sir Alexander Korda and all the others both in the trade and in this House.
It is a very serious matter for men who have claimed to be the leaders of a very great industry to have propounded policies in recent years—not remote years—and to have found those policies go awry and break down completely in the face of repeated warnings backed by substantial evidence and facts. One questions whether the industry is really in competent hands when we find that the Government have been recommended in the last two or three years certain courses of action which have proved to be abortive.
As to the question of quota, in previous Debates we have said all that there is to say. I agreed with the implication of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut-Colonel Elliot) that we are putting the cart before the horse in this Debate. I am not criticising my right hon. Friend, because I know his difficulties in this matter, but how we can discuss the quota without dealing with the recommendations of the Plant and Gater Reports I do not know. Probably many of the speakers in this Debate will skate around matters which have already been discussed by those committees.
The Plant Committee has taken evidence from every organisation in the industry. The Gater Committee dealt with


the very thorny point of cost of production. Those reports have been published and are before the various Government Departments. It is therefore clear that until the Board of Trade makes up its mind what to do with the recommendations in those reports the arguments about the quota or any other individual or specific aspects of the film industry will be practically a waste of time.
I shall not follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman into the field of Entertainments Duty. I could say quite a lot about it. However, I want the House to know that I agree with what he said about it. An opportunity to discuss that matter will probably arise from the Report of the Film Finance Corporation, and the forthcoming Budget may give many hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to introduce their views. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman showed a realistic view of the trade's problems as a whole when he pointed to the fact that Entertainments Duty in its present form and in its present sum is a definite and very serious contributory factor to those problems. Until that is looked at I cannot see any hope of those problems being solved. What is more, I and everyone in the industry agree heartily that a percentage of revenues coming into the box offices should be ploughed back into production. There can be no disagreement on that.
I want to take up one or two points about the quota. What is largely forgotten or ignored is this. Why is it that a high quota cannot be fulfilled? Why is it that any quota cannot be fulfilled? When the quota was 45 per cent. the Rank organisation was in its heyday, enjoying an almost perpetual honeymoon, and a number of other entrepreneurs in the industry were also in a very happy position. It can no longer be argued that the Rank organisation or any other entrepreneur is enjoying a honeymoon of any kind.
The question which should therefore be posed is: Why is it that even a 30 per cent. quota cannot be fulfilled? I said that a 50 per cent. quota would not be fulfilled, that a quota of 45, 40 or 35 per cent. would not, and I now say that even a 30 per cent. quota cannot be fulfilled.
The reason is very simple. One need not be a statistician or a genius to discover it. The simple reason is that there is no money available anywhere to back a quota. There is no money in the country other than what may be left of the dwindling funds of the Film Finance Corporation. There is not even enough money left in the country—I challenge my right hon. Friend to disprove it—to back 5 per cent. of British films.
Hon. Members are very often baffled as to why there is a breakdown in the film industry and why a quota cannot be established. They ask what is wrong and why the industry cannot get on with the job, but there is no capital available to make the films. Solutions are proposed, but the remedies are numerous and there are so many disagreements about them. It would take the Royal College of Surgeons and everyone else to perform the operation, and probably during the operating process the body would become a corpse. If my right hon. Friend can only provide some extension of the Film Finance Corporation so that there is an equilibrium between the loans administered by the Corporation and whatever the quota figure is, we may get out of our difficulties.
The sum of £5 million lent to the Corporation will not finance a quota of 30 per cent., let alone one of 40 per cent. More money than that will be required. Where is the money coming from? If the Government do not find the money to back their own legally sanctioned quota, the only other way of dealing with it is an impracticable one, and even then we should probably not secure sufficient money to enforce the 30 per cent. quota. The method is to take all the profits from the exhibitors and put them back into a pool. That may be a very desirable thing to do, but whether it can be done is not for me to determine. Nevertheless, even if we took all the profits of exhibitors for showing American films as well as British films, I doubt very much whether there would be sufficient money in the "kitty" consistently to back a 30 per cent. quota for 4,500 cinemas.
I do not want to enter into an argument with many of my colleagues whose views are known to be different from mine about certain aspects of this matter—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went: and, having re-turned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

The Consolidated Fund Act, 1950.

Orders of the Day — FILM QUOTAS (AMENDMENT ORDER)

Question again proposed,
That the Cinematograph Films (Quotas) Amendment Order, 1950, dated 10th March, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. O'Brien: To resume, may I point out that my right hon. Friend mentioned the quota figures for the preceding three or four years and the number of first features made in that time. What he did not disclose to the House were the figures of those employed in the industry in those years. It is true to say that when the exhibitors' quota was up to 22½ pen cent.—that is, precisely one-halt of what it was in the last quota period, namely, last year—there were over 10,000 people employed in British film production of all kinds. When the exhibitors' quota was doubled, as it was in the last quota period, from 22½ per cent. to 45 per cent., employment in British film studios dropped by at least one-half, from 10,000 to 5,000. Today there are not more than a little over 4,000 people employed in British film studios. The quota therefore has been no help at all to the technicians, employees, artisans, artistes and all that great array of talent and services which are given and go into the production of films. Those are facts which have to be faced.
Much has been said about the memorandum which was circulated yesterday by the Association of Cine-Technicians, an organisation which I helped to form and with which I have a very close business association; I shall come to that briefly in a moment. But in my own organisation which I am privileged to represent, we have an unemployment figure of nearly 4,000 people in film studios alone. We do not weary Members of this House with periodical circulations

of our difficulties. We are realists. We know exactly what is the trouble; we are seeking to provide remedies, and remedies that will be lasting.
It is easy to be tempted to find palliatives or to find a remedy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We could indulge, as some of my friends in the A.C.T. and here indulge, in an anti-exhibitor campaign. That is a very simple thing for us to do, but when we have in cinemas nearly 90,000 employees, men and women who have as much right to live, to have a fair crack of the whip and to have trade union and labour conditions as fair as anyone in the studios or anywhere else, we cannot indulge in the luxury of trying to solve this problem merely on an anti-exhibitor or anti-distributor basis. That does not mean to say that all is well in the exhibiting and distributing worlds. By no means is that so. Those two sections of the industry have their problems.
I come back to the Plant Report. Many recommendations were made, including that of the remission of taxation. These, however, have not yet been debated so far as I know in this House. We should try to solve, therefore, the wider problems of the British film industry, especially in relation to the question of quota, not by digging somebody else's grave. We must look at the whole issue very carefully, and that is why we as a trade union cannot be parties to a hasty solution merely in production when that would cause corresponding difficulties—and, probably, more so—on the exhibiting side. We also have over 5,000 redundancies on the cinema side.
In short, we as a trade union—I do not want to flog my own particular interests here; I am not doing that; I want to deal with the industry as a whole—have had almost 10,000 of our members thrown out of work in studios and cinemas during the past two years or so. We are not complaining about it in that sense. We are as anxious as anyone to bring about a solution which would end that state of affairs. But many of those who have been thrown out of work have found employment elsewhere, and to their great credit they have found employment in some of our exporting industries
While I am not here to criticise another trade union—we have machinery for that purpose in the trade union movement—it is not true, and this House should know it, that all the 800 technicians who have


been mentioned are technicians in the sense in which hon. Members understand the definition of this word. A considerable number of those 800 could find employment in the export industries by a little adjustment of their capabilities. On the other hand, many of those 800 could not possibly find employment in any other industry for a considerable time, and it is for this particular element that I feel very concerned.

Mr. Michael Foot: I think that my hon. Friend is slightly unfair to the Association of Cine Technicians in making that statement, because over and above their 800 members who are now unemployed there are many other hundreds of their members who have been driven to find employment in other kinds of jobs.

Mr. O'Brien: I accept the interjection of my hon. Friend. I am not wanting to be unfair at all. Those who know me in the industry would not accuse me of that. The fact is that from the figures which have been circulated, it might be said that these 800 technicians could not possibly find employment elsewhere. That is not true. A considerable number of them, I agree, could not do so: that is the difficulty. A great musical or other artist, for example, cannot be trans-, formed into a laundry worker in five minutes. But the statement that they could not find employment elsewhere is not true of the majority of the unemployed members of the A.C.T., as it is not true of the majority of the 4,000 people whom I have lost in my own organisation, in film production alone.
I have made that point in order to make another. What really matters is not so much that all these employees of my own organisation, of the Electrical Trades Union and of the A.C.T., are becoming unemployed and that many of them are finding work elsewhere. The great tragedy is that the production industry is losing a great deposit of experience and skill. As and when the British film industry comes back to some kind of productive prosperity, we shall not be able to gather and to call on that lost labour and skill. That is really the great tragedy, rather than the difficulties of adjustment by these people from one industry to another.
I should like also to see more co-operation among the unions in the industry. That would help, probably, to meet the requirements of a high quota. It is not for me here to go into detail, but I think it is my duty to the House to mention that the Gater Report is an important report. The Electrical Trades Union, which has a substantial membership in British studios, and ourselves, representing the majority of the other employees and artisans in studios as well as in distribution and exhibition, find that we are handicapped by reason of the failure of the Association of Cine-Technicians, who circulated their document yesterday, to co-operate with us on the problems which are raised in the Gater Report. We have even asked for the guidance and assistance of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress in the finding of solutions for the film problem, and my right hon. Friend has had talks with representatives of the General Council.
We felt that by the establishment of a joint industrial council, which was the idea of the Electrical Trades Union, we could face up to the real problems of working conditions and costs of production in studios as far as they concerned what may be termed the industrial, technical and artistic grades. For two solid years we were working on that and in the end we had an agreement with the employers as well as among the unions on the constitution, but, much to our surprise, and dissatisfaction, at the last moment the Association of Cine-Technicians saw fit to withdraw from the industrial council and leave the whole matter in the air. That is their business, but it is no use asking hon. Members of this House for assistance in certain matters concerning the economics of the industry if the unions concerned fail to take the ordinary elementary step of trying to solve matters among themselves.
There are one or two aspects of current agreements between trade unions and employers which should be faced. I doubt very much whether men like Sir Henry French and the people he represents, Sir Philip Warter or Mr. Arthur Rank and all the others can claim to be fitted to lead this industry in the future because of their failure to solve the glaring inequalities we find in certain trade union agreements dealing with the various sections of the film-producing industry.
That is a factor which I think should be looked at in another place and I hope I shall have the support of many hon. Members in all parts of the House who want to see the industry looked after in the proper way.
We and other bodies in the industry tried our best to maintain renters' quota. We feel that if we had maintained it, the position of the film industry would not be what it is today. We know of the difficulties in connection with international agreements, which prevent the re-establishment or re-introduction of renters' quota in the legal sense, but I beg my right hon Friend, who has given so much time and attention to the affairs of the industry, to help as far as he can in bringing about in some way, the effect of renters' quota and to bring about a policy which would be the same as if renters' quota were actually introduced in the law. I do not think that is beyond the ingenuity of the Board of Trade and of bodies in the industry.
We do not look to any system of quotas now for the success of the film industry, but to the confidence of British cinema-goers to back up British films. We look with confidence to the makers and sponsors of such films as have been mentioned today, and others too. We look with confidence to the City of London and great industrialists to give some kind of financial backing to this industry. We know very well that the time is not ripe for many years to come, without entering the political field, for any State control of the industry as a whole.
Had it not been for the Film Finance Corporation, the state of affairs in the industry would have been worse than it is today. There is no question about that. There we have a pivot on which we can expand. If all parties, irrespective of political colour, could co-operate in this matter of inducing the financial houses and great industrialists to display a little more confidence in our work, there would be no need for technicians and people like myself to make speeches deploring the fate of the industry. Rather we would have an industry which could take a great part as an exporting industry exporting to all parts of the world, through the screen, the message of what this country stands for in its democratic way of life.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Baker: I crave the indulgence which is usually accorded to those making their first speech in this House. I also apologise because I am rushing into a Debate for which I was not prepared but about which I feel very strongly. Therefore I have not prepared my maiden speech.
It seems to me that in talking of the film industry hon. Members are forgetting the main issues, and that even in the case of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) there is too much recrimination on all sides. We must maintain a high level of British film production of one kind or another. The quota is only one way of achieving it and the quota will only be maintained if now the British Film Industry gets together, if it gets together also with the right hon. Gentleman, and if not only a solution is worked out and a plan put into operation, but that both are done quickly. It seems to me that we have been talking about the industry's plight for so long that it is being allowed to drift because the trade is waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to do something and the right hon. Gentleman is waiting for the film industry to do something. This is a matter of some urgency considering the number of dollars which it can cost this country if British film production virtually ceases.
Usually two lines of approach are taken. The first is usually taken by hon. Members opposite who say, "Rank's honeymoon is over, let us get rid of Rank"—

Mr. O'Brien: I did not say that.

Mr. Baker: No, the hon. Member did not say that. The other view which is taken is that the Government should not interfere in this case with the private enterprise organisations. But we shall only get a successful industry if the major private enterprise organisations maintain themselves efficiently and the Government intervene and supports them and see that there is a national film policy. It is a matter of great urgency now for the Government to get together with the industry. We may recall that when the industry was divided and distributors and producers could not come together and say they agreed to reducing Entertainments Duty, the right hon. Gentleman


suggested that until they could come together there was nothing he could do about it; but when at last they came together, he suggested that there was something sinister in their co-operation. He must have been right on one occasion, but could not be right on both occasions. Here is an opportunity to do something to save film production and dollars.
Rank's honeymoon has been a very expensive honeymoon and probably he has learned a lot—

Mr. Poole: One usually does on a honeymoon.

Mr. Baker: I think everyone has learned a lot, and I hope the Government will give a lead and not only give the 30 per cent. quota, but also make a reduction in Entertainments Duty and make money available for production. Then we can get a high level of entertainment in this country, cut down the drag of dollars and show British films in this country as well as throughout the British Commonwealth. If we can get a sufficiently thriving industry, hon. Members on all sides of the House will be able to say that the right hon. Gentleman has done a good job which, although this is a maiden speech and I should not be controversial, I must say I do not think he has done so far.

5.30 p.m.

Earl Winterton: In the course of a very long Parliamentary career it has frequently fallen to my lot to speak after a maiden speech, and I confess at this long distance of time that there have been occasions in the remote past, 30 or 40 years ago, when I found it slightly difficult to pay the accustomed tribute. If I may say so with all sincerity, it gives me the greatest pleasure this afternoon to follow someone who has made his maiden speech, or to use a more correct term, has spoken for the first time in this House. It will be the opinion of every one on both sides of the House that it has been a highly competent and courageous performance. The hon. Member got up and spoke in this very controversial debate, as he has told us, without having intended beforehand to do so. That he should have made the speech which he did may give him every confidence about his future in this House.
In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's interesting dissertation on the film industry he and I got slightly across each other, as we do in every film Debate. I am sure he will agree I am not giving away any confidence improperly in saying that he has since assured me privately that he intended no reflection upon the Rank production organisation by comparing the methods of its preparation of its accounts with that of the Government film organisation which provides the money for certain films. At the same time I must say to him, before I put a few points to the House through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on this very complicated and difficult matter, that although it does me no harm personally, and so far as I am aware does no harm to the organisation with which I am connected, it seems to me rather regrettable, as I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) will probably agree—we agree upon quite a lot of things connected with the film industry—and rather purposeless that in every Debate connected with the film industry many of the speeches, including invariably that of the Minister, centre entirely round the good and bad qualities of the Rank organisation. One would suppose that there is no other large circuit, no such thing as A.B.C., no such person as Sir Alexander Korda, for whom I have a great admiration.
May I say in parenthesis that so far from having any feeling against British Lion, I am delighted that they are producing films, one or two very successful ones. I am not surprised to learn—if I am wrong the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless contradict me when he replies—that they are finding, with the money borrowed from the Film Finance Corporation, the same difficulty in getting an adequate return upon their films as we in the Rank organisation are finding in regard to the films which we produce and which are financed from such resources as we have left. I shall be very interested to look not only at the first report of the Film Finance Corporation but at, as was indicated in a pertinent interruption by one of my hon. Friends, the second and third reports.
I say now—and this is a matter to which I shall return later, because you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker have given us permission to do so by the Ruling you gave


in the course of my right hon. Friend's speech—that until there is a reduction in the Entertainments Duty it will, for reasons which I shall give in detail later, be impossible to produce any films at a profit except perhaps one in fifty.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the noble Lord state the profits made by the exhibiting companies of the organisation with which he is connected, because every one of them made a handsome profit, not a loss, and they are the companies which pay the Entertainments Duty?

Earl Winterton: I have not got those figures by me now and I should prefer to give them in detail when we come to the question in our Budget Debates. I can assure the hon. Member that support in this matter is not confined to one side of the House. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, knows, we shall produce facts and figures which are supported by all sides of the industry including, I think, the union of which the hon. Member is such a distinguished member, to show that the taxation drain on the industry, especially the exhibiting side, is greater than that on any similar entertainment industry in any other country in the world. We shall deal with that aspect when we come to the Budget, though I wish to say a word about it later in my speech.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was pleasantly controversial about the Rank organisation and myself, so he will not mind if I am equally pleasantly controversial about his own attitude and that of his distinguished predecessor at the Board of Trade, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, is too good a party man to say that he entirely agrees with me, I think he will agree with the analogy which I am about to make. I say that the Board of Trade, under successive Presidents, has treated the cinema industry as a whole, especially on the producing side, as a certain type of pampered lap-dog treats its unhappy owner, at one moment wagging its tail and licking its owner's hand and the next moment, for no apparent reason, barking and growling angrily and trying to bite.

Mr. O'Brien: In the sense that there have been two very distinguished Presidents of the Board of Trade who

have been leading lights of the Conservative Party, I will agree with the noble Lord's analysis.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman will not get out of it quite as easily as that. I am an old bird and I am sometimes caught by "salt on my tail," but I am not to be caught with that particular sort of salt. I shall in a moment give quotations showing how, under the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor at the Board of Trade, we have been dealt with over the quota during their tenure of office there.
The ad valorem duty on foreign films was imposed on 7th August, 1947. On that date the Americans stopped sending their films to this country and a very serious controversy arose, not only with the film industry in America but with a wider interest, a very powerful interest in American public life which represents the film interests. I am not for a moment suggesting that there was corruption. Everyone knows that as a result of pressure brought to bear on the British Government by American interests, who said, "You cannot treat one of our industries in that way. If you do, you will suffer in other directions"—no one knows this better than the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it was announced in Parliament on 11th March, 1948, that the ad valorem duty would be withdrawn, and that this would take effect from 14th June, 1948.
Let the House and even the most bitter opponents of the Rank organisation or any other producing organisations in this country realise what the effect of that was. Let us see what happened as soon as the industry here knew that no American films were to come into this country. I should also point out that they were approached—I cannot explain in detail the extent of that approach without giving away confidences, but it will certainly not be denied by any other Member of the Government. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a speech at a public dinner in which he said he had brought every influence to bear on the industry to make as many films as possible. The result was, and it has been admitted by everyone connected with that portion of the industry with which I am connected, that we poured out films which had to be


produced in conditions of haste and under contracts which we should never have dreamed of entering into in ordinary times. That was done in order to meet what we believed, and the Government believed, to be the case—that there were no films coming into this country, and in consequence we would have to produce far more films than ever before.

Mr. Wilson: I seem to understand the noble Lord to say that the agreement with Mr. Eric Johnston was the result of strong pressure from American interests. How can the noble Lord account for the fact that the only pressure we experienced in this matter was not from American interests, but from the British Film Producers' Association, of whom at that time Mr. J. Arthur Rank was chairman, and who demanded that this situation be brought to an end, because there was no future in film production so long as it went on?

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman can say that as often as he likes, but he knows perfectly well that considerable pressure was brought to bear on the Government—perfectly legitimate pressure—by the American Government. That cannot be denied, because it is a matter of common knowledge. At any rate, whatever were the causes of the reversal of policy, and even if the right hon. Gentleman is right and there was no pressure brought to bear by the Americans, that reversal of the policy caused complete chaos in the industry. The industry was told, "You have a whole market entirely to yourself. No foreign films will be brought in." Members of the Government got up in this House and said, "Here is a wonderful opportunity; you will have to do better than you have ever done before."
Then, suddenly, the whole policy is reversed, and in place of it the quota is imposed. But that is not the worst thing. Hon. Members who follow me will indulge in their usual criticism of the Rank organisation. I hope, as I see a director of that organisation in the House, he will say a word of criticism about A.B.C., because they are very naughty too. They are a big organisation and they try to make money. That, in the opinion of the bon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), is a' terrible thing. They make money by

private enterprise which, as I say, he considers a terrible thing; so I hope he will save some of his gibes to direct at them.
Let me read out to the House some of the variations in the quota policy. Some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who are not aware of the extent of the variation will be simply astonished. This happened, not under the Conservative predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, as has been so very disengenuously suggested; it happened under the present Government. These are the variations in the quota. In 1945–46 it was 15 per cent.; in 1946–47, 17 ½ per cent.; in 1947–48, 20 per cent.; in 1948–49, 45 per cent.; in 1949–50, 40 per cent., and now it is 30 per cent. I am sure that any impartial person, not connected with the industry, will agree that that makes a difficult position both for the producing and the exhibiting side of the industry in this country.
At the risk of repetition or of boring the House, I would say that in my opinion, until there is a let-up in the amount of taxation which is taken from the exhibiting side, there will be no prosperity for the British cinema trade. I have some facts and figures in my possession about the position in foreign countries which I will quote, because I do not think they will be controverted. The American producing industry caters for a cinema-going public at home which is six times larger than that of Great Britain. A 20 per cent. tax is added to the price of the seat, whereas in Great Britain, on the average, the figure is 50 per cent. One can certainly see from that what overweight the British industry, especially the British producing industry, carries, in comparison with the American industry.
Every expert in the industry would agree that the Americans can afford to do things which, because of this overweight, are impossible here. At the risk of getting out of Order by dealing with a wider subject I would say, and this is a matter where there would not be disagreement between the two sides of the House—it only illustrates the point so apparent in all production in this country compared with American production—that the Americans have this enormous home market, which increases the difficulties of producers here, whether they be employers or employees. That is the


real basis and the strength of the economic case of the United States cinema industry.
It has been suggested in the course of the Debate that nothing has been done in the way of increasing the productivity or saleability of British films abroad in the last few years. I should like to give figures to controvert that. I believe them to be accurate; they are taken from one of the trade journals. In 1939 there were 59 showings of British films abroad. In 1948, the figure was 567 and in 1949 it was 563. Since there have been references to the Rank organisation, I make no apology for saying that there is now, because of our affiliations abroad, far more showing space for British films than has ever been the case before. We have some of the best films, although we would admit that we have produced some bad ones. But the best films, like "Red Shoes," and three or four others now showing overseas in the Commonwealth countries—where for a variety of reasons they could not be shown before, because American control prevented British films from being shown there previously—are meeting with great success.
I do not agree with everything which has been said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, but I do agree with him that we should never allow ourselves to be over depressed about this industry. Despite the difficult times through which it is passing, despite the disabilities and the mistakes of direction in this country, which I frankly admit and which the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his side of the industry, would admit, there is much which is healthy about it. I can pay a tribute to him and to other trade union leaders. I would say that there is a good relationship in the industry, which does not exist in every industry in this country. There are times when the hon. Member and I, both being fierce watchdogs, are prepared to bark and to bite anybody in this House who attacks the industry, and who says that we are incompetent and inefficient. We say that that is not true.
With regard to this particular quota I am in favour of it, as is the majority of the industry. I think that the Government were quite right to bring it forward, but I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman, and also to my right hon. Friends, since I do not expect to be in

the next Tory Government which will come into operation very soon. I hope whoever is at the Board of Trade in the next 18 months will not pursue the policy pursued in the immediate past of altering the quota once every year. I hope we shall have something like a firm and consistent policy on the part of the Government towards the British film industry, and then I believe it will have a chance of flourishing as great as that of any other industry.

5.50 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I am particularly interested in this Debate because I am a member of the Cinematograph Films Council which is supposed to advise the President of the Board of Trade in this matter. When the Council met to discuss these quotas, I was otherwise engaged, as it was six days before polling day, but I have closely studied the records of that meeting.
The first point which strikes any independent member of the Council is the remarkable unanimity displayed by the exhibitors and the producers in the industry. This is something novel and one is perhaps permitted to be a little bit suspicious, because on all previous occasions when I have heard quotas discussed in the Council, there have been considerable diversions, the producers always asking for a very much higher quota and the exhibitors for a very much lower quota. I must confess that the thought entered my mind that those who represented the producers on the Council on this occasion might possibly have been thinking of some of their other interests on the distribution or exhibition side of the industry. One of the difficulties of an independent member of this body is caused by the dual, and sometimes triple, personalities of one's fellow-members of the Council.
If I thought that the only reason for the proposal of 30 per cent. instead of 40 per cent. had been just a ganging-up between producers and exhibitors, or even the defeatism of certain producers. I should not support the lower quota, but I must confess that such little experience of the industry as I have had has led me to believe that a high quota in itself does not automatically lead to increased production or to improved quality—perhaps still less to improved quality—and that a high quota would not, of itself, fill the studios which are now unused, reduce the


most regrettable redundancy in the industry among the technicians, or even give what is most desirable of all, an opportunity to the most talented producers in the industry who are at present without employment for their talents. If I thought that a high quota would lead to all the happy results that we would wish for the industry, I should most certainly support it.
It may perhaps have been a coincidence for the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) to refer to some of the circumstances connected with film production when the quota was at the high level of 45 per cent. Production was certainly not of the very best quality. I would accept to some extent the reason that he gave for that, but my point is that obviously quality of production—and even quantity of production—is not as closely linked with quotas as one might suppose. On the contrary, I am inclined to believe that a high quota, as with other protective devices, may have the effect of masking some of the fundamental weaknesses in this industry for which reform is overdue.
Therefore, I am prepared, in principle, to support the quota of 30 per cent., though I should like to know from the President of the Board of Trade exactly how he proposes that this quota of 30 per cent. should be administered. We know that with the remissions which are given very considerably under the present Act, the quota which was nominally 45 per cent. was effectively a quota of 37 per cent., and the quota which was nominally 40 per cent. was an effective quota of 33 per cent. I should like to know whether this quota which is nominally to be 30 per cent. will be an effective quota of not more, perhaps, than 24 per cent. or 25 per cent., because when the main quota was reduced by one-ninth from 45 per cent. to 40 per cent., the quota sub-committee of the Films Council, which is responsible for granting remissions under the Act, automatically, or almost automatically, reduced the subsidiary quotas for the cinemas to which remissions were granted.
I should like to know whether it is proposed that the quotas for the cinemas which received remission under the Act will be automatically reduced by one-quarter or whether it is in fact intended

that this quota of 30 per cent. this year should be much more nearly a quota of 30 per cent. overall for the entire industry. This is a most important point. If the subsidiary quotas are to be reduced by one-quarter and we reach an effective quota of 24 per cent. or 25 per cent., then it is not a very high quota for the industry.
We must also remember that there is at least the possibility that more blocked American sterling may be used in the future than has been used in the past. That might have the effect of reducing the quota for the British industry, in the full sense of the word, even lower than the nominal quota. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the principle of the 1948 Act which was that the high quota at first fixed was fixed at a high rate so that the circuit cinemas should be obliged to show a large proportion of British films. But the very complicated series of remissions which are granted under the Act were included in order to temper the wind to the independent exhibitors.
If we lower the quota too far we shall no doubt help the independent exhibitors still further, but we shall make it possible for the circuits to get away with a very small proportion of British films. In the only year of which we have any experience, 1948–49, for which we now have the returns, the main circuits were able to meet their quotas, although a number of the independent exhibitors had great difficulty in doing so. I should be sorry to see a position in which matters were made too easy for the three main circuits. For myself, I agree to this extent with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham. Had there not been this present crisis in the film industry, I should have liked at least one more year's experience of the 40 per cent. quota. It is extremely disturbing if the quota is to be changed year by year. I believe, in fact, that for the current year we have much better information at the disposal of the quota sub-committee than we had in the first year of our operation. One would have liked to gain even more experience with the second year at the same quota level.
I should like, in passing, to pay a tribute to Sir Arthur Jarratt, who is chairman of the quota sub-committee, for the extremely difficult and detailed work


which he has undertaken in this matter of going into the question of the remissions afforded to the individual cinemas. There is one difficulty to which the President of the Board of Trade might refer, if it is not out of order. The chief difficulty in imposing this quota has been the position of the independent exhibitors who are not entitled to any relief at all under the terms of the Act. They are the ones who are expected to fulfil the full quota. It was among them that we had 77 per cent. of the defaults during the first year of operation under the new Act. That seems to me something which should be considered in any proposals for amending legislation in future.
Another question is the enforcement of this quota. One of the advantages, we hope, of having a lower quota is that it can be adequately enforced. It is certainly disturbing when we have 1,474 defaults and when we know that the very large majority of them will have to do no more than plead under Section 13 of the Act that they could not fulfil the quota because it was not commercially practical. It would be betraying confidential information if I were to disclose the number likely to be prosecuted, but it is very small indeed, and I should say that, while there might be some justification under the old procedure for not undertaking prosecutions when there was a completely rigid quota, there is far less excuse at the present time and under the present Act when, with the remissions, we have a much more flexible system.
I feel that it is essential that the Board of Trade should be less reluctant than it has been in the past to undertake prosecutions when they are really justified. I would not accuse the members of the Council who advise on this matter of acting with anything but complete integrity, but there is no doubt that the official attitude is that one prosecutes only as an absolutely last resort. Under new legislation and a much more flexible provision, this is an attitude which should not be encouraged. If we have a law; we should secure respect for that law.
I know that it is not possible absolutely to enforce the law in every possible case, for the reason that, when we fix the quota for any year, we cannot precisely estimate the number of British films which will be available to meet the quota requirements, and I think that is just something

which we must accept. As the President said, we have been reasonably accurate in the past in estimating the number of films likely to be available, and, if anything, we have erred very much on the side of safety. Therefore, I think it cannot be taken as a reason for allowing the continuation of the present situation in which we have a really shocking number of defaults of this quota.
Finally, we do not wish to fix the quota so high that there will be undue pressure on the Films Council to increase the number of films which have run their four-year period and are then re-issued for the quota, because we ought to cut down very much the number of films which are re-issued for the quota beyond the four-year period. We have tried, indeed, to grant re-issues under the quota rules to a very limited number of films, which I think is the correct policy. I am sure that we have in the last year or two exaggerated the effect of the quota on the industry. In a very complex industry, it is very difficult to disentangle cause and effect, and I think that the present tendency in the industry is, quite rightly, concerned very much more with the fundamental issues of organisation and artistic merit, and regards the quota as some slight help, but no more than that. I hope that before long we shall have another opportunity of going much more deeply into the fundamental issues, but meanwhile I think we should accept the present quota.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I cannot claim any of the personal knowledge or experience of the film industry which has been shown by previous speakers, but I am very glad of the opportunity of speaking in this discussion, because my constituency of Barnet contains Elstree and Boreham Wood, which I think comprise the largest single centre of film production in this country.
I do not think it is generally known outside this House how very bady hit the production side of the film industry is at the present moment. In Boreham Wood, there are four studios, of which the two smaller studios—the Gate and the National—are completely closed. The Associated British Studios have all their four stages in operation, but I do not know how long they will continue in operation. The largest studio is that of


M.G.M., which has seven stages, and none of them is at present in operation for film production. There has been some reference to unemployment in the industry, but I do not think it is generally known that in some categories it amounts to over 50 per cent.
I am particularly concerned with the position of the senior technicians, such as cameramen and sound recording experts, who are now unemployed and whose very specialised occupation does not fit them very easily for transfer to other forms of employment. They are also in many cases people who were earning good money and who have entered into personal commitments, such as an insurance policy or house purchase through a building society, and who are today in a particularly difficult position.
I think these are some of the reasons why the Association of Cine-Technicians strongly opposes a reduction in the present quota. They are very concerned about the position, and I think they are right to be concerned, though I do not think they will have been able to draw much consolation from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade today. Last year, when the right hon. Gentleman announced the reduction of the quota from 45 to 40 per cent., he used the phrase, "reculer pour mieux sauter." I imagine that he hoped this year to be able to restore the quota, but I fear that that phrase has become rather like the phrases which appeared in communiqu és during the war about "strategic withdrawals to previously prepared positions," which was simply another way of saying that we were on the retreat.
I think it is sometimes suggested that the film industry is asking for special protection and special treatment that is not accorded to other industries. In this matter of the quota, that is surely right, because the film industry has difficulties which no other productive industry in this country has to face. It is not only a fact that the American film production industry has an immense home market upon which to rely, but the real point is that one can sell a film as many times as one likes. If an American manufacturer is selling motorcars in this country, he can either take a profit on a car sold here or on the same car being sold in Australia, but he could not take that profit twice.

The film producer can both sell his film here and in Australia as well, and it is therefore wiser for him to take a small profit in this country rather than no profit at all. That is an argument upon which the Board of Trade itself rested to some extent when the 75 per cent. duty was imposed. It can be driven too far, but it still has considerable validity.
Another reason why film production is in difficulties is because of the attraction of Hollywood to the industry's personnel, and particularly the stars, in this country. As a result, stars have to be paid these very high figures, though I myself could never understand why they should wish for these high salaries, 90 per cent. of which goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that is perhaps because I never had the chance myself. The fact is that these sums have to be paid to stars, and this sets a standard and creates an atmosphere of extravagance which in itself creates further difficulties.
Finally, there is the fact that film production is more than an industry. There is a national interest in maintaining the artistic quality and prestige of the British film industry. For all these reasons, I think there is a strong case for maintaining the quota if possible. But, on the other hand, we must look at the position of the exhibitors, because the productive end of the industry depends entirely on the money taken into the box office by the exhibiting end. I know that exhibitors have great difficulties and are facing considerable competition. They are, of course, facing competition from live entertainment, with in many cases very much easier tax conditions; they are facing the growing competition of television, which is already making itself felt in the box office receipts, particularly in the London area, and they are also faced with the disinflationary pressure which we are told is growing, and which reflects itself in the falling public expenditure on entertainment. If exhibitors cannot attract sufficient money into the box offices, the producers cannot get an adequate return on their films, and therefore anything that increases the problems of the exhibitors must redound to the disadvantage of the producers.
There is no doubt that the attempt to make too many films resulted in a reduction in the quality of the films made. I think that is stated in a passage quoted


by the noble Lord a little earlier this afternoon from the Plant Report. Therefore, if the retention of a quota of 40 per cent. means making films of a lower quality, that may redound to the financial disadvantage of British producers. That being so, I think the balance of argument is on the side of reducing the quota from 40 to the 30 per cent. But can this quota of 30 per cent. be maintained? I think there is some doubt about it, and that doubt was expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien).
There are two points to consider. The first is: have we sufficient directors and producers of adequate quality in this country to make 50 or 60 first feature films? There seems to be some argument about that. The second and more important point is will there be the finance available to maintain a film production of that size? There are two possible sources of finance; first the Film Finance Corporation, and, secondly, the private finance organisations. I was glad to hear from the President of the Board of Trade that we shall soon be receiving the first year's Report of the Film Finance Corporation. I noticed that when referring to the Rank organisation the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the possible tardiness of their accounts had some relation to their accuracy. I hope that the speed with which the Film Finance Corporation's accounts are submitted will bear no relation to theirs. Apparently the Corporation find that the money returns rather more slowly than was at first anticipated.
I looked up the Debate which took place, I think, last March, when the President of the Board of Trade referred to the "angels" who used to provide the finance for film making and quoted from "Hamlet" about angels and ministers of grace defending us. I hope the right hon. Gentleman also remembers the quotation to the effect that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. It will be interesting to see, as soon as possible, what finances are available for film production from the Film Finance Corporation. So far as private finance is concerned, it is surely dear from paragraph 64 of the Plant Report that the return to the producers is not in the normal way adequate to cover production costs, and, as long as that continues, we shall not get people

to finance productions. How can anyone expect people to put money into film production when it is certain that they will be faced with a loss?
I have one further point to put to the President of the Board of Trade. As I said earlier, the largest studio in Bore-ham Wood is the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer which, at present, is not being used at all. It has seven stages, and is magnificently equipped. I hope that, as a result of the negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman will have to undertake in the near future with the Americans, we shall get that studio space used. It would certainly be better if every studio could be engaged on productions 100 per cent. British, but if that is not possible, then it is better to have American companies using their blocked sterling for film productions in British studio space. I hope that in the near future the right hon. Gentleman will be able to announce that some progress has been made on that point.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: The hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maulding) has shown a considerable grasp of the problems which concern his constituents, and has painted a very grim picture for the President of the Board of Trade of the position at Boreham Wood. I hope that whoever replies for the Government will give us some information of what they intend to do with regard to the unemployed and redundant staffs in those studios. In the course of his speech, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) said very modestly that he was in the position of saying to the right hon. Gentleman, "I told you so." I have been re-reading the previous Debate on this subject which took place just before the last Parliament was dissolved. I find that the great majority of those who took part in it took the trouble to warn the right hon. Gentleman that the quota he was then fixing was far too high. Unfortunately, although most of the speakers who took part in that Debate gave that warning to the right hon. Gentleman, his own advisers did not, and consequently he has now to come to the House and ask for another variation of the quota.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who usually speaks with a good deal


of optimism about this industry, appeared particularly gloomy when he spoke this afternoon. In fact, the gloom was only relieved by the dialogue or the cross-talk on the Rank organisation which developed. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) offered the President of the Board of Trade the slogan, "Follow Mae West and' do not do your best." I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's gloom because if we look through the whole story of the cold war, the tax, the quota variations, the provisions for the Finance Corporation introduced into this House, and note the various committees, councils, and what not which have been set up, the net result is, to use American film parlance "an all-time record low" on the production side of this industry, as described by the hon. Member for Barnet.
As one hon. Member after another in varying degrees has said this afternoon, let us not skate over this thing and come here in Debate after Debate to ask for higher or lower quotas and act as though everything in the garden were lovely. The industry will be facing a very acute financial crisis in the immediate future. Indeed, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, went so far as to say that there was no further finance available for film production in this country, and the hon. Member for Barnet said that there were no more "angels" available. What does this mean? It means that the independent production of films here has now reached the point when there is no more capital available anywhere except that which can be advanced by the Film Finance Corporation.
Whatever the President of the Board of Trade has in mind, he must know that if there is no more private capital available in the form of what he referred to as "angels" or otherwise, and if it is going to take a long time to get back the receipts, as hon. Members have suggested, it would be better for him to take this House into his confidence and tell us exactly what he proposes to do, and what hope he thinks there is for financing this industry in the future. What he said this afternoon, and on which hon. Members on all sides have spoken in criticism, is that the production side of the industry has practically closed

down, and that the Government can give us no hope at all as to how the industry is to continue the next two or three months. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) on this subject, and I was very glad he intervened. I wish more of his followers had been present to hear his very cogently argued speech on free trade when he was dealing with the effects of a high quota.
I was very interested to hear the Minister's reply with regard to American diplomatic intervention on this matter of the quota. Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House of Commons that no representations of any kind were made either by Mr. Eric Johnston or by Hollywood or by the State Department in Washington? Surely, ever since it was first imposed, the whole story of this quota has meant that representations had been made and, as the noble Lord said, the larger background of the relationship between this country and the United States has always been brought in.
In my view the quota is dead, and has been redundant. Why are we not frank about it? The right hon. Gentleman has given figures to the House today and previously on the numbers of cinemas unable to comply with the quota. I think he gave a figure of 1,500 on feature films alone, and 1,200 on supporting films. What kind of law is this, when we say to people they must comply with the quota and they cannot get the films to do it? The Minister knows perfectly well that it is going to be far worse in future and that the cinemas have not the faintest chance of complying with this protective regulation. The Government are not assisting the industry and I do not think there have been any prosecutions at all.

Mr. Wilson: They are being considered.

Mr. Granville: The right hon. Gentleman says they are being considered. I can understand the war-time situation, but here we have the right hon. Gentleman with this film business, the prize baby of the Board of Trade, hitting an all-time low record, or nearly as low as it has ever been before, and the Minister still expects, at any rate in production, the cinemas to fulfil quota obligations of that sort. It would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman, with his political


background, scrapped the quota altogether and took the advice of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham who said in effect that the film industry is international. We cannot build a film industry as a national racket behind tariff walls and quota restrictions. The United States has a cinema-going population three times as large as ours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Six times."] Very well, six times. The result is they can spend much more money on the production of their films. In this country, the film industry depends entirely on what it can make on the American market by way of profit if it spends more than £100,000. This has never changed since the days of the Ranks and various people who tried this experiment with far more experience than the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers. Those men failed.
The best way to save dollars would be to try to persuade the United States that we cannot afford to pay the enormous film bill in dollars every year and to invite them to come over here and, instead of making their films in Hollywood, make British films in our studios. Those studios are idle, and we have technicians and electricians and so on unemployed at present. Has this been put to the Americans? I know the Minister has been to America and we have had reports of these discussions in the United States. But has this proposal been put at the right level in America and have they been told that, with Marshall Aid coming to an end, we cannot afford to pay this film dollar bill any more. Let them come over here and, instead of paying their dollar balances to America, use European technicians in This country. Films are international and the best films from Hollywood are full of British names. Let us makes Elstree and Denham and our other film studios world centres for the presentation of international films. It is only by doing so, that we can give the industry a chance.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I have a very few minutes in which to speak, but it is only right that at any rate one person in this Debate who is opposed to the Government's proposal should say a word. Other speakers regretted, as the President of the Board of Trade did, that the quota had

to be reduced, but they all regarded it as a proper and right action. I take a quite contrary view. I believe that, just as the reduction of the quota has caused very considerable alarm and despondency throughout the producing side of the industry and among the technicians, so this Debate will deepen that alarm and despondency, because this is an indication of another step towards the decline of the industry.
What were the reasons advanced by the Minister? First, he dealt with the advice given him by the Films Council which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who is a member of that body. I believe the exhibiting interest on that body has been enormously strengthened and that is why one gets that kind of advice from the Films Council. It should be recognised by the House that there was the strongest possible protest made against that recommendation by the Association of Cine-Technicians, which represents not only the technicians but also directors, writers and the whole creative side of the industry. And they have said that there should have been a much fuller inquiry into the films which could be provided during this quota period. The second reason put forward—though I thank the Minister for not putting it forward himself today—is that there is a shortage of talent in the British industry. That is complete rubbish. There is plenty of talent to carry out a bigger production of films, if only it was organised properly.
I want to stress in the few moments available what is the most serious aspect of this whole position. That is the consequences which will follow from this reduction in the quota, and the prophecy of a later reduction made in some quarters. I believe it means that another step is being taken towards the Americanisation—horrible word—of the British film industry. The average quota at present is below 40 per cent. because, taking all theatres into account, the average showing is about 35 per cent. That means that when this reduction is made there will be roughly an average of 25 per cent. British films among all the films shown in British cinemas. When it is remembered that some of these films are made by Americans in this country with frozen sterling, it means that only about one out of five of the films shown on British screens are


going to be British films in any real sense of the word.
That is a dangerous situation. It may mean death to the British film industry. It may mean dissipating the talent and destroying this industry which a few years ago was showing great possibilities and promise. I am as much opposed to an American dominated British film industry as I would be to an American dominated British radio industry or an American dominated British newspaper industry. What would be the thoughts of hon. Members if only one out of five of all the newspapers published in this country were British owned and the rest were dominated by the Americans? This policy is wrong not only from the film point of view but from the point of view of the economic interests of this country. Making more films with piled-up frozen sterling—which is one result that must follow—deprives us of a dollar-earning capacity which we would have with more truly made British films. It must also injure the possibility of standing on our feet at the end of the Marshall Aid period.
As to the cultural side, the effect may be disastrous under this system, which is being assisted by the quota arrangement, of piling up frozen sterling and making more films under that arrangement. We are soon, I believe, to have a film with Irene Dunne as Queen Victoria, and also a film about Dunkirk with Gregory Peck featuring as the hero—one of the greatest insults to the British Empire since Errol Flynn captured Burma single-handed. That is not the way to make a real British film industry. Despite all the consultations which the President of the Board of Trade has had, I do not believe that he has really consulted the Association of Cine-Technicians who, as I say, speak for the whole of the creative side of this industry. They have a much better contribution to make towards building up the film industry than the advice from exhibitors whose financial interest is that they should sell many more American films, and the advice from the other sections of the industry which have been referred to.
I hope at least that this quota will be strictly enforced. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will consider not allowing films made by piled up frozen sterling to count as quota films. I hope

that as soon as possible he will produce the radical policy for the film industry which can at least give some hope to the hundreds of technicians who are out of employment, and to the thousands of creative artists who have been prevented from making films on anything like the scale they would have done but for the crazy, chaotic failure of private enterprise and private monopoly in this industry.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: We are approaching the end of yet another Debate on the film industry, and I do not think that any hon. Members who have had the pleasure, or otherwise, of listening to most of them will feel that this one has been any more satisfactory than the Debates in the past have been.
There has been a breath of fresh air from the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot); I think we all admire his enthusiasm for the British film industry and his desire to establish what is an important national asset in its proper place. But I think the House will feel that he is under-estimating the difficulties which attach to film production. It is not an industry. It is not a matter of putting together capital and labour and turning out a product. It is the wedding of art and industry, and that is a very difficult task. At the other end there is a very critical audience which may not like what has been produced, and one does not even know what has been produced until the very end of the production. It is not so easy, as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe, as simply turning on the production tap and getting the sort of products which this country and the world will accept.
The industry is certainly in a pretty bad way today. Only two years ago the President of the Board of Trade appointed a committee to see whether the Government ought to provide more space for film production. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that the quota should be reduced to 30 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman today made a very agreeable speech, apart from the interchanges he had with my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—all in good humour, of course. He made a very remarkable speech, but he was less than fair to Mr. Rank and his associates. He is mistaking


cause for effect. It is not the capacity of Mr. Rank and his associates or their malpractices which are responsible for the fact that production is going down. They have not sought to reduce production out of some distaste for the right hon. Gentleman. They are the victims of the economic circumstances of the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman should direct his attention not to Mr. Rank and others of his kind, but to the basic economic circumstances of the industry which make it impossible for Mr. Rank to carry on. Indeed, Mr. Rank has sacrificed his personal interest in a manner in which no other person would have done or could have been expected to do. Now it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to see that the industry gets into a position in which it can get on to its feet and produce, not merely out of a desire, which Mr. Rank has had, of establishing the film industry on a proper footing, or on the basis of personal sacrifice, but on the basis of creating a product which pleases all tastes.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a financial matter. Of course it is. What the House is concerned with today is not this quota of 30 per cent.; we admit that that is something over which we have little or no control. What the House wants to learn from the right hon. Gentleman is whether next year we are to expect a reduction or an increase in this quota. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), that if the present tendencies continue and if the right hon. Gentleman, by some misfortune, is still at the Despatch Box next year, he may ask the House to approve a lower quota than the present one. This industry is not on the "up and up"; it is on the downward grade. Mr. Rank's inability to produce films is not a very gratifying fact in the film industry.
What amazes me is that the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and points proudly to the fact that the National Film Finance Corporation is financing 50 per cent. of our productions. That is a matter for alarm, not for congratulation. It ought to alarm the right hon. Gentleman to think that 50 per cent. of the film production in this country is coming from Government finance. What will happen if Mr. Rank and A.B.C. cannot produce?

What is to happen when the money of the National Film Finance Corporation comes to an end? I understand that only half a million of the £5 million is now left. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what is going to be done to enable the National Film Finance Corporation to continue financing.
To a man who is out of work it is not much help listening to what the right hon. Gentleman said today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, these men who have spent their lives in a specialised undertaking like the film industry cannot get jobs elsewhere. They want something more positive than what the right hon. Gentleman said today. The right hon. Gentleman said that a film like "Morning Departure" is a magnificent film and cost £100,000, or thereabouts. What he did not tell the House was that unless "Morning Departure" takes a lot of money, there will be a loss on the production. The House has a right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman will say how the film industry can carry on in the existing circumstances. It is no good his telling the industry to make bricks without straw. He has got to tell the industry what it should do in order to exist.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I thought the hon. Gentleman believed in private enterprise.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has made a very unfortunate interjection. I did not wish to attack the Government on the issue of the burden of taxation. Strictly speaking, that would be outside the ambit of today's Debate. It is quite true that it is impossible to conceive of this industry being successful in the manner in which every hon. Member wants it to be successful under the present burden of taxation. All that I invite the right hon. Gentleman to do when he replies, is to show the House and the industry how it is possible with reasonable care and economy for anybody to produce a film in this country which, from the revenue it obtains in this country, will make a profit for the producers. If he does that he will have satisfied this House and, I think, those concerned in the country.
It is true to say that British films today are limited by the inability to have the technicians and directors of the right


quality. Despite what the hon. Member for Devonport tried to say, we have not half a dozen Carol Reeds and David Leans, and it is to good pretending that we have. If we are to succeed in this industry, we must revive the flow.
private capital into it, and until the industry is put on a sound basis, there is no hope of reviving that flow.
We have had today a wholly disappointing Debate because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will not "come clean." I believe he knows as well as anybody else does that the present situation of the industry is impossible under the conditions imposed upon it. He has had so much to do with the film industry in the past four or five years that he must know that, and I ask him urgently to give some message of hope to the producers in this industry, some message of hope to the 50 per cent. of the technicians who are unemployed, and to give some confidence that he will not come to the House in 12 months' time, if he is still occupying his present office, to ask for a further reduction in the quota. The British film industry is a national asset. We can give to the world films of a peculiar quality and of an intellectual quality which no other nation can give. We want to see that asset built up, and we on this side of the House will do anything we can to help the right hon. Gentleman along that line, but we want to see more frankness from him than we have seen up to now.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. H. Wilson: I can reply only by leave of the House, but if I have that leave I should like to deal with one or two of the points which have been raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said it has been a disappointing Debate and the main reason which he gave for that statement was my failure, as he put it, to state what our policy is to lead the industry out of its present difficulties and my failure to "come clean" on the chief difficulties. Since he, the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) stressed Entertainments Duty as the principal difficult with which the industry is faced, and since the Tory Party have said time and time again that they do not

think this industry can ever build up its production until that tax burden is alleviated.
I do not know how the hon. Member thinks I could come clean on this question or how I could anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement. I do not think he seriously expected for a moment that I could anticipate that statement although I know that the Tory Party have no such inhibitions about anticipating Budgets. We are all familiar with the Budget promises on every conceivable tax which we had during the General Election, and even on the Entertainments Duty right in the middle of the Election. There must have been an attempt on the part of the Conservative Party to get the vote of the cinematograph exhibitors and others by pledging support to the industry's fight for Entertainments Duty relief.
Following a statement sent by one hon. Member, whom I am sorry to say is unable to be here tonight because of illness, through the Conservative Central Office to a very important weekly, the paper came out with a main headline, "Tories pledge support of industry's fight." I do not know whether the Tory Party are now fully committed to that particular change in taxation, but whether they are or not I am sure they will realise that it is absolutely impossible for me to anticipate my right hon. and learned's Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the Tory Party has made no declaration in this issue. All we are asking the right hon. Gentleman is how can the industry continue under the present burden.

Mr. Wilson: The Tory Party may or may not have made any clear declaration on this issue. They have become very accomplished at persuading a lot of people in different sections of the community to believe that they intend to make particular changes in taxation without, however, in every case specifically promising to do so. In many cases, of course, they have made those promises.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove set the form of the main lines of the subsequent Debate by referring to two main points. The first, as he put it, was the failure of the Government


to put the industry in such a condition that it could maintain production at a higher level, and the second was the excessive number of changes of quota—and that was a point taken up by the Noble Lord, who gave a lot of statistics this evening. He did not, however, give those requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), in spite of my offer to help him on that matter, but he gave the quotas over a period of six or seven years.
I must say, and he, having been concerned with films for a long time, will recognise it, that that recital of statistics was completely bogus and misleading because in the middle there was a change of the whole basis of quota which made it absolutely impossible to compare quotas under the old Act with those under the new Act. I recognise that his references to three quotas under the new Act support his case about an excessive number of changes of quota, and he called for a firm and consistent policy under which the industry could be sure that the quota would not be changed from year to year.
I know that the noble Lord felt, as did his right hon. and gallant Friend, that perhaps a little too much has been said about one particular organisation within the film industry but, taking up the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's phrase that it is difficult to conceive a "Hamlet" without the Prince, so it is absolutely impossible to talk about the level of quotas and the volume of film production without taking some account of the production programmes of the major production group within the industry.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Rank is, I suppose, only the Rosencrantz of the industry.

Mr. Wilson: He may have sunk to that level in terms of the number of films being produced, but the noble Lord can hardly speak of the change in the figures of the quotas when I remind him of what Mr. Rank himself said. Of course, he was speaking in a dual capacity in those days, both on behalf of producers as a whole, who were faced with the same difficulties as those facing the Rank organisation, and also on behalf of the Rank organisation.
On that occasion Mr. Rank stated quite definitely that he could guarantee that 60 pictures would be released by his own production companies during the 1948–49

quota year. It does not need even a statistician like the noble Lord to calculate that if we were getting 60 pictures from the Rank organisation this year, then the quota we should be debating tonight would not be 30 per cent. or even 40 per cent. or even 45 per cent.; it would be well over 50 per cent. It is, therefore, impossible to debate these matters without bringing into account the calculations and the production estimates of the Rank organisation.

Earl Winterton: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, because we have had a good natured conflict and I know he is a fair-minded man. I quite agree, of course, that we must bring into account one of the principal producers, one of the principal men in the trade. All I said was that there are other organisations, such as A.B.C. and Alexander Korda, who are our friendly rivals, and who have met exactly the same difficulties.

Mr. Wilson: I quite agree; I was going on to make that point. The problem with which we were faced in the summer of 1948 was the almost total collapse of production in the British film industry, with the possible exception of the Rank group who at that time showed no signs of collapse. They were still maintaining a production programme—and we had not heard anything like so much about the Entertainments Duty from the Rank group in 1948 as we have heard in the past few months. But a considerable number of eminent directors and technicians of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) had already left the Rank group by that time and had gone elsewhere, had gone to the Korda organisation particularly, and that organisation was faced with the complete drying-up of supplies of finance.
When the noble Lord in a good natured way gibes at the fact that the Board of Trade has officially looked after this industry and says the industry is in such difficulties as a consequence, he really must recognise that in spite of all the great help given to the industry by the Board of Trade, both the Government and this House have been let down by the industry over the past two or three years and the industry has not fully seized the opportunities placed before them both in the provision of finance and in other


ways. When the noble Lord makes the suggestion that under the present Administration the Board of Trade has done less good for the film industry than previous Administrations have done, he forgets, perhaps, some of the things said officially On behalf of the Film Producers' Association—that for the last few years the Board of Trade has done more for the film industry than has ever been done for it before in its history.
I should like to deal with the point raised by him about the agreement with the United States, particularly as there was some misunderstanding by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville). The noble Lord suggested that the reason for the agreement of March, 1948, was that American pressure, whether Governmental or private, on the Government forced us to make a sudden reversal in policy; and the hon. Member for Eye was surprised at what I said on that subject, that the Americans had pressed hard on the quota question for some time.
Of course, that is true—ever since the first quota was fixed at 45 per cent.; but the noble Lord was not, I think, referring to quota problems, but referring to the sudden change brought about by the agreement of March, 1948, with Mr. Eric Johnston. It is true that Hollywood was upset by the 75 per cent. tax and instituted a boycott. It is true that the Government pressed the industry to produce more films in this country. It is not true, as the noble Lord said, that we said to the industry, "No more American films will be allowed in. You have now got the market to yourselves." It was not the Government that kept the American films out: it was the American producers.
What weighed most with the Government, leading us to enter into these negotiations with Mr. Eric Johnston, was the fact that one producer after another, and the Producers Association led by Mr. Rank, made it quite clear that the expected increase in production would not be forthcoming so long as the boycott was continued, and that there was a great danger—so they put it to me—that the cinemas would be closed down, and that in those circumstances there would be no need for British film production and certainly no free flow of finance into the industry. It was those facts, and the fears expressed to me by the exhibitors of this

country, which led me to enter into the negotiations.
There remain a number of other points that have been raised, and but a few minutes in which to deal with them all. There was a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). It is rather difficult to answer. She referred to a point also mentioned by the hon. Member for Eye and others, and that is the number of defaults, exemptions, and so on. She expressed the hope that under the new and lower quota—she will agree that there is no escaping the necessity for it—there will not be the same need for exemptions or special quotas. It is difficult to give a clear assurance on that, but I agree with her that there is no need for any automatic reduction in the position of other theatres, and I would hope that one result of the lower and, in this case, fully realistic quota will be that the position of the other cinemas will be tightened up, and that the law will be much more strictly enforced in the future than it has been under the quota of 45 per cent.
The hon. Member for Cheadle asked me to say what I thought the prospects were, looking ahead to the future of the quota. It is extremely difficult to look ahead in this industry. Many of our hopes have been frustrated, but I did give some reasons in my opening remarks for thinking there are encouraging signs in the industry at the present time in the improvement of quality, and in the much more realistic attack upon production costs, which are being made, not only by the film companies, but also by the N.F.F.C., and the Rank Organisation is taking a leading part as the noble Lord said—

Earl Winterton: I said there were good relations between the employers and the employed.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, an improvement in the relations between the two sides of the industry. The Gater Committee did a good deal to bring that forward. The hon. Gentleman expressed enthusiasm—or excitement—about the fact that the Government, through the N.F.F.C., are financing half the films in the industry. I share the hon. Gentleman's alarm that that should have been necessary, but I think I may be permitted to express some satisfaction that those films—half of the


films being made now—which would not have been made if the money for them had been left to be found by private enterprise and private finance, are being made by our intervention through the Finance Corporation.
The hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) talked about rushing in where angels fear to tread. I am quite certain that he himself, like others of his party, would have supported intervention by a Government of his party in this case, and would have rushed in where private finance feared to tread; otherwise there would have been a total collapse of film production in this country. I am sure he would not like to go back to Barnet to say to his film workers there that the Government are wrong in stepping in and saving film production in this country through the N.F.F.C.
As to the future, I am sure we all agree that whatever changes there have been we hope the position will be held and stabilised. Many of the hopes that all of us had in the Debates on the original Act have been frustrated, for reasons about which hon. Members on one side of the House may differ from hon. Members on the other. However, those hopes have been frustrated. Now we look forward, with the fixing of this lower and realistic quota, to the beginning of a new era in British film production.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Cinematograph Films (Quotas) Amendment Order, 1950, dated 10th March, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION)

6.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
There is very little time now in which to introduce this Motion, and I rise now merely to say one or two preliminary words before the clock strikes seven. These are, as I think the whole House recognises, very complicated and detailed Regulations, and I would not wish to suggest for a moment that I am a complete

expert on them. Indeed, I doubt whether any Member of the House—with, perhaps, one exception—may claim any special knowledge of them. Perhaps, the great value of these Regulations that we are considering today is that they consolidate a series of previous superannuation Regulations and, I hope, make them somewhat more comprehensible to those who need to follow them, and save them the complexity of having to refer to three different sets of Regulations, as previously they had to do.
There are a few points I wish to put, when a further opportunity presents itself, about certain minor changes which, in addition to the consolidation, we are proposing in these Regulations, and about which hon. Members on both sides of the House may wish to say something—

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business, further proceedings stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

King's Recommendation signified.

7.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 156A, line 5, leave out from "that," to "Exchequer," in line 8, and insert "any provision of the Bill—

(a) constituting a new county borough or in Scotland a large burgh;
(b) altering the boundaries of the area of a local authority; or
(c) authorising expenditure by a local authority,

would or might operate to increase the sums payable by way of.
Standing Order 156B, line 2, leave out from "authorising," to "have," in line 6, and insert "expenditure by a local authority which would or might operate to increase the sums payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, and the Standing Orders and practice of this House relating to provisions authorising charges upon the Public Revenue.
Standing Order 169, line 11, leave out from "it," to end of line 15, and insert "contains any such provision as is mentioned in Standing Order 156A (Modification of practice as to charges on Public Revenue)


Standing Order 191, line 10, leave out paragraph (c), and insert—
(c) the sums payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948.
Standing Order 228A, line 16, leave out from "Act," to end of line 20.

I think that the House will want a short explanation of the Amendments which we are proposing. The need for these Amendments arises directly from the dissolution of the Local Government Boundary Commission and indirectly from the Local Government Act, 1948. The House will remember that the Act made the Exchequer equalisation grant dependent upon local authority expenditure. That, in turn, meant that an increase in a local authority's expenditure involved an increase in the Exchequer grant. Therefore, any rise in the local authority's expenditure meant an increase in public expenditure, and so a charge on the Exchequer. For that reason, from that time onwards it required a Financial Resolution where any Bill made an alteration in local authority expenditure. That meant that Private Bills having that effect would have required a Financial Resolution. That, of course, would have been highly inconvenient from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure and the House, therefore, decided in November, 1948, that the Standing Orders should be so amended as to make a Financial Resolution unnecessary in the case of a Private Bill authorising expenditure by a local authority.

In order, however, to preserve the principle, and indeed the substance, of Parliament's control over the resulting charge on public funds, it was at the same time provided in Standing Order 156B that a protective Clause should be inserted in any such Private Bill on the Committee stage which would lay down that the local authority expenditure in question should not be taken into account in deciding the Exchequer grant, unless the responsible Minister recommended on the Committee stage of the Bill that it should be so taken into account. That alteration was also applied to Scotttish Provisional Orders, with the addition that a Financial Resolution was also to be dispensed with in the case of Bills to confirm Provisional Orders which altered the local authority boundaries. That, was applied at the time to Scotland but not to England

and Wales, because at that time the Local Government Boundary Commission was the machinery by which alterations in local authority boundaries in England and Wales were made, and it was not, therefore, necessary to apply this change to England and Wales.

What we are now in fact doing is to apply to England and Wales the procedure which was applied to Scotland in 1948, and we are doing that because the Local Government Boundary Commission has now, of course, ceased its operations. What this Motion actually does is to widen Standing Order 156A so as to include in its scope Private Bills either constituting new county boroughs or altering local authority boundaries. Standing Order 156B is left substantially unaltered. That is because the protective Clause is not necessary for Bills altering local authority boundaries. Such Bills are bound to involve some change in local authority expenditure, and, therefore, on the Committee stage of Private Bills of that kind, the Minister would be bound, if he approved the boundary extension, to recommend that such change in expenditure should be taken into account in deciding the Exchequer grant. The Amendments to Standing Orders 169, 191 and 228A are consequential on the changes in the other two Orders.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The point at issue is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman has suggested in his calm and reassuring speech. The House should know quite definitely what it is doing. It is doing something that matters in Parliamentary procedure. It is of the utmost importance that we should realise what we are doing. It may be right to do it, but it is certainly not right to do it without realising what is being done.
Stage by stage, the control of Parliament over public expenditure is being whittled away. The hon. Gentleman said that these proposed Amendments to Standing Orders arise because of the dissolution of the Boundary Commission. We did not dissolve the Boundary Commission. The Government dissolved the Boundary Commission, and one act of the present Government leads to another, with the result that Parliamentary control of finance is gradually losing its power and authority.
I think that if any hon. Member were asked in this House, and particularly if any new hon. Member were asked, wherein lies the initiative in financial proposals or legislation, he would say that the initiative lies in the Crown. He would point to the fact that the Opposition cannot initiate taxation, that no private Member can propose new taxes, and he would add that no local authority either can propose new taxes on the people. Only the Crown, he would say, can initiate taxation. But this is no longer true, and a further step in this progress is happening tonight. As long as the House realises it and decides by a majority, if it comes to that, to agree to it, then we can have no quarrel with the decision, although we may doubt its wisdom. But the great danger about all these changes in Standing Orders is that the majority of people know very little of what is happening.
Under the new system of Exchequer equalisation grants introduced by the Local Government Act, 1948, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the amount of Exchequer grant payable to any authority now depends on the amount of money that that local authority spends. The result is that now, and since 1948, any Private Bill promoted by a local authority authorising increased expenditure now imposes, or may impose, a charge on the public revenue. It has been for centuries the practice and the procedure of this House that any Bill imposing a charge upon the public revenue, whether it is a Public or Private Bill, should carry with it a Financial Resolution.
After the Local Government Act, 1948, there was, we recognise, a modification of the procedure, but only in one particular. It was agreed that the Financial Resolution could be dispensed with if a Committee of the House that was dealing with the particular Private Bill, inserted into the Bill a protective Clause providing that expenditure by a local authority which might or which would increase the amount of Exchequer grant could not be taken into account when calculating the amount of the Exchequer grant unless the Minister responsible for the Department concerned recommended that this protective Clause should be omitted. We agreed to this but I think that many hon. Members on this side of the House in 1948 were not altogether happy about it. We agreed to it because we recognised that new

difficulties had arisen through the new procedure in regard to Exchequer equalisation grants. Tonight we are asked to go a great deal further, and to apply this new machinery to a number of other possibilities which are enumerated in this Schedule.
The hon. Gentleman has just said that the principle—and he added, indeed, the substance—of the control of the Crown has been preserved. I doubt whether even the principle has been preserved; most certainly the substance has not been. I think that the House ought to realise one or two facts. At the time that we agreed to this new procedure two years ago it was difficult to see how any Private Bill could authorise expenditure on such a scale as considerably to affect payments under the Exchequer equalisation grants. Again, under that proposed change, if we thought that the Minister had wrongly or irresponsibly given a certificate or recommended the omission of the protective Clause, we were able to attack the Minister personally.
Then again, as the hon. Gentleman knows, at the time that we agreed to this new procedure we did not apply these provisions for boundary extensions, as he indeed said, to England and Wales, because there was a Boundary Commission, and the House knew that if the Boundary Commission recommended certain changes in local authority boundaries, even if they did involve the taxpayers who did not live in those towns in expenditure and taxation, the proposed changes were done on the authority of a Boundary Commission in which the average Member would naturally have complete trust. But now the situation is quite different.
Perhaps I might, in passing, remind the House that on 8th November, 1948, when the first changes were being proposed, the then Financial Secretary—whose friends on both sides of the House will be glad to notice has lately been given a responsible and honourable office in his own party—said:
As the House will remember, in England and Wales any future changes of that kind will be made on the recommendation of the Local Government Boundary Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1948; Vol. 457; c. 1280.]
That was one of the reasons which guided my hon. Friends to give approval to the proposed changes. But now we


have an entirely new situation. No one can deny that the Boundary Commission has now been dissolved, and in future we are not going to ask the taxpayers to bear extra expenditure in particular local districts because the Boundary Commission thinks it right. But we are asking them to do it because a particular local authority thinks it right; and that is a very different matter indeed.
Another objection is this. It seems to us that the criticism that we were previously empowered to level against the Minister for his issue of a certificate is now diminished. It may possibly be true—and I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say so—that in so far as boundary extensions must lead to financial consequences, the Minister, at some point in the Committee stage of the Bill, is bound to show his approval or otherwise; but by that time the Parliamentary machinery has got well under way, and it is obviously much more difficult for hon. Members who feel strongly about this principle in general to be able to deal with it when, in particular, the Bill under discussion has gone a long way towards reaching the Statute Book. It does seem to us to be quite possible that some machinery could be introduced whereby the approval of the Crown, whether in the form of a Financial Resolution or in some other way, must be presented to Parliament before these Bills can start on their Parliamentary progress.
We have no wish whatever to diminish the authority of local authorities or to add to their many difficulties today. Indeed, it is our desire to see local government restored to a healthy state, and local authorities given the responsibilities that their organisation and their ability deserve. We are most anxious that the ever-growing power of Whitehall over local authorities should be diminished. None the less, we cannot forget that it is this House which is responsible for financial legislation; and we should not forget that hitherto the initiative in financial legislation has lain with the Crown. It is perfectly true that the House could, if it liked, insert Amendments in these Bills in their various stages, but hitherto the practice has been, not that the House of Commons or a local authority demands money, but that the

Crown demands money and the House of Commons votes it. There appears to be no good reason at this moment why that procedure could not be maintained, even though it has to be maintained in a different form.
I ask the Government tonight whether they would not be prepared to take these proposals away again and think them over once more. I think that we are all out to achieve the same object. We have no wish whatever to add to the difficulties of local authorities, but we believe it to be possible to devise some machinery whereby the approval of the Crown at the beginning of these proposed Bills should be presented to Parliament. For example, could not the Minister table a note of his intentions to give approval when the Bill comes up for Second Reading; or could not the Committee report to the House that the protective Clause has been omitted on the Minister's own favourable report? This would really preserve not only the principle but the substance of the Parliamentary convention that initiative does lie with the Crown in all matters of finance.
Let me, in conclusion, make one reference to the remarks of the Minister of Health when the first stage of this new practice was introduced into the House two years ago. At a time when our whole economy is being threatened by reckless expenditure, mostly at the centre but not always, I think that we ought to remember these words. He said:
As things were in the past, local authorities could not themselves initiate expenditure"—
he was, of course, referring to expenditure involving a charge on the public purse—
but now, if the Minister of Health says he does not mind"—
if he does not mind, with all the possibilities that that casual phrase suggests—
then whatever additional powers they want would attract money from the general revenues, so that local authorities need not worry at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1285.]
Now local authorities have a lot to worry about that they need not worry about, or should not have to worry about, but the consequences of incurring expenditure which will attract to themselves money from the general revenue should most certainly worry them, and I do not regard proposals introduced by words of that


kind as justifying an unchallenged introduction in the House of Commons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, after consultation with his colleagues, agree to think again, to see whether by talks between the parties we cannot arrive at an agreed solution of what is, admittedly, a new and difficult situation.

7.20 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: I wish to add a few words to the very able speech we have just heard, because it was that speech and not the speech of the Financial Secretary which told the House what is being done. By way of introduction, I want to say that, coming back into the House after eight years' absence, the one thing that has shocked me more than anything else has been the loss of control by this House over public expenditure by the alterations which have been made during those intervening years. I understand that my hon. Friends assented on more than one occasion to these alterations, and therefore I am one of those who can blame them as well as those on the Government benches for what has been done in enabling the taxpayers' money to be spent without proper authority from this House.
I noticed with great regret that when we were discussing the Supplementary Estimates on 14th March, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) raised the point that the alteration in procedure had very seriously weakened the control of the House over Supplementary Estimates. Every time the control of the House over the expenditure of public money is weakened, the control of the Treasury is also weakened over the Departments. The only thing that compels strict control over public money is that Ministers should know they have to come to the House for specific permission, not general permission, when they want to spend public money.
This is not, in this case, a tremendous further licence for the spending of public money—it only goes to the Exchequer equalisation grants—but it does go to this extent, that if under provision (c) of the proposed alterations, local authorities decide to embark on further money, they automatically attract additional grants of the taxpayers' money. That must be wrong. It must be wrong that a local authority should be able to compel public

money to be provided. It simply shows that the wartime feeling that it is possible to produce money for any purpose, has been introduced into the years of peace, and that the old-time authority of this House over grants and the Executive is being weakened bit by bit by the proposals of the Government. I am not prepared to let this pass without a word of condemnation. The suggestion that has been made, that there should be discussions on how to keep some sort of control over this increased local Government expenditure, should be adopted. There should be consultations to see whether it cannot be done in a better way than the proposal now being put forward.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I find myself in the uncongenial position of suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) that they might perhaps modify their attitude of opposition to this Amendment to the Standing Orders. I do so, not because I do not share to the full their tenderness regarding the true functions of the Crown and this House in relation to the expenditure of public money, but because I believe they have misconceived the effect of the proposals, and also because the result, if these proposals are not accepted, will, I am sure, be displeasing to them and to hon. Members in general on this side of the House.
The essential point is that no extra expenditure of public money and no new imposition of taxation is involved in the boundary alterations of which the consequences are regularised by these proposals. I will give a simple illustration to show what is happening. Suppose that there are two local government areas side by side, which I will call A and B. Suppose that local government area A does not qualify for an equalisation grant and that area B does so qualify. Suppose that a square mile is to be transferred by a boundary alteration from area A to area B. The automatic consequence is that the extra expenditure now borne by area B instead of area A becomes grounds for an increase in the equalisation grant payable.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What my hon. Friend is saying is directly contrary to


what we have been told by the Financial Secretary. He said that any such change would impose a charge. Therefore, the Minister would have to declare his approval during the Committee stage. One or other must be right, but both cannot be.

Mr. Powell: I have no wish to interfere with the reply which the Financial Secretary will eventually make. The point is that no alterations in the services provided in the transferred area will take place. It is merely that the transfer from one area to another results in a change in the equalisation grant. No new expenditure is being incurred. I feel, therefore, that nervousness in allowing control over the financial consequences of the boundary changes to pass from the House is misplaced. I entirely share the feeling, which I think is a general feeling on these benches, that the operation of the equalisation grant procedure is too indiscriminate, but that is a matter of principle embodied in the 1948 Act, and so long as that Act remains on the Statute book, it is unreasonable to object to the purely automatic consequences of the machinery.
Having attempted to show why I think the grounds of objection on a constitutional basis are mistaken, may I suggest that if the House were to reject these proposals the consequences would be undesirable? On 2nd November last year, it will be within the recollection of those who were in the House at that time that the Opposition divided, rather less successfully than on a subsequent occasion, against the Second Reading of the Bill to abolish the Local Government Boundary Commission. When we divided on that issue we did so on a reasoned Amendment, of which the following were the terms:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which suspends the making of minor and urgent adjustments by a simple and inexpensive machinery originally set up by Parliament for the purpose.
During the course of the Debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) emphasised that there were a tremendous number of alterations to boundaries that urgently required to be made, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) took the view that if these alterations were held up, there would eventually be a much more serious

disturbance of the structure of local government than if the minor alterations were allowed to take place. Unfortunately, owing to the mistaken action of His Majesty's Government, these alterations have now got to take place under Private Bill procedure. We ought to beware of any step which would prove an additional hindrance to that procedure in effecting minor boundary alterations; and it is because this Motion, while harmless from a constitutional point of view, is designed to facilitate these alterations, that I hope my hon. Friends will not oppose it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hargreaves: I hesitate to intervene in this Debate, but I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that it is impossible to reconcile the two points which he put forward, namely, that, on the one hand, local authorities are having powers and duties taken from them which are advantageous and important, and, on the other, that the local authorities are being hampered by the central authority in their demands for expansion of their work. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not mind additional taxation falling upon the country by reason of the actions of the Boundary Commission, but he strongly objected to such additional taxation falling upon the nation because local authorities made some recommendations.
I am not complaining, but some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been very vociferous recently in their attempts to make the country believe that all the powers and duties of local authorities are being taken from them by this Government. What the Motion attempts to do is to make it easier for local authorities to render services to the people in their districts. The Motion deals with Bills constituting a new county borough, altering the boundaries of the area of the local authority or authorising expenditure by a local authority. Is there not sufficient protection for the House in regard to such Bills without a Money Resolution, because the Committee giving consideration to such a Bill may make such alterations as are considered desirable?
The point I want to make is that, at every stage, this House has control of the expenditure of local authorities. Let us take into consideration the possibility


of a local authority going forward with a small expansion scheme and promoting a Bill of this kind. Even if this power is given to them to cover their expenditure such as borrowing money in order to purchase land, putting out tenders for sewering that land, or asking for tenders for buildings that may be erected on that land, at every stage they must refer to the central authority. First they must ask for the powers to borrow, for authority to seek tenders and so on, and yet it is suggested that this power—[Interruption.] I do not know what the mutterings coming from the hon. Gentleman opposite are all about, but I wish that someone would feed him.
The House is fully protected at every stage, and while I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire that there may be cases where such expansion may have the effect of altering the equalisation grant, it is not invariably the case. It may not always alter that grant, but may make it necessary for the central Government to provide more money for the local authority. Because some indication was given to the local authorities at the time the work of the Boundary Commission was rendered null and void that this procedure would be available to them for vital, necessary and urgent expansion. I believe it would be betraying the local authorities to abolish it now, unless we make it easier for them to approach this House in the circumstances which I have described. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree to the Motion.

7.37 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but it seems to me that his main contention was that a change of boundaries could not possibly increase the charge on the Exchequer. If that were so, there would be no sense in this proposed amendment to the Standing Orders. The Financial Secretary said that it would be highly inconvenient to have a Financial Resolution, which would have to be passed for corporation Bills. I know that the promotion of a Bill by a local authority is an expensive and troublesome matter, but I cannot see how the requirement of a Financial Resolution would cause to the local authority either trouble or expense. A Financial Resolution

would have to be produced by the Treasury, and it would lie with the Financial Secretary on behalf of the Government to give to this House an explanation of what it was all about and what were the possibilities of increased charges upon the Exchequer. That is the kind of thing in which hon. Members should be interested.
It is vitally important that we in this House should keep control of finance and that initiation of expenditure should be in the hands of the Government. It is also important that we should preserve Treasury control, and I am surprised at the Financial Secretary to the Treasury being so anxious to deprive the Treasury of that control. I cannot see how the requirement of a Financial Resolution for the purpose of these corporation Bills, involving the changing of boundaries, can possibly do any harm or result in in-creased trouble or expense. It is a perfectly simple thing for the Financial Secretary to come here and tell us all about it, and we are always glad to listen to him. I trust that the suggestion made from our Front Bench will be accepted by the Government and that this very important matter will be reconsidered, so that we may be able to reach an arrangement convenient to all concerned involving no serious trouble and at the same time one which will preserve both Treasury and Parliamentary control.

7.40 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am sorry to have to refer to the fact that the Leader of the House, during a discussion earlier today, objected to what he described as sausage-machine legislation which he thought that I was suggesting. That is precisely what he is suggesting in the Motion which stands in his name. I listened to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), who said that he did not want to obstruct local authorities. I do not want to obstruct local authorities. I think that they have lost too many local governing powers. The rest of his speech had no relation to the subject-matter of the proposed Amendment to Standing Orders that we are now considering.
I am not certain whether the hon. Member is or is not an old Member of the House, because I am not yet familiar with all the faces. I would remind him that after a Bill has been through Committee


and before we get to the Report stage, we often find the Minister in charge of the Bill moving that it be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. For what purpose? Because certain Amendments which it is desired to move are so designed that they cannot be moved when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, because they may impose a charge.
We take infinite trouble not to impose a charge unless the Motion arises in a Committee of Ways and Means. We must not lightly abandon these things. Every now and again we take constituents round the building and we show them the paintings, some of which illustrate the vital importance of our financial safeguards. They show our resistance to monarchs, or private Members keeping Mr. Speaker in the Chair in order to carry through iniquitous things that your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, had no power to prevent. All the safeguards are important, and we should not let them go lightly.
Suppose a municipality is proposing a Bill which would or might increase the sum payable. In all such cases, the Bills have to go upstairs before our colleagues who are sitting in a judicial capacity who have a mass of information and who are assisted by learned counsel. Nothing which imposes a charge of any kind can come before us unless it has a Financial Resolution associated with it. We know that in nine cases out of ten the Financial Resolution goes through without a word of debate, because Ministers are careful to draw Financial Resolutions in terms which are narrow and are only sufficient for the purpose. Why should a local authority have greater freedom than His Majesty's Government when proposing legislation, or than any private Member? If I had power to introduce a Bill, which now I have not got, and that Bill might conceivably impose a charge, I could not make any progress with it unless I could induce a Minister of the Crown to table a Financial Resolution to cover it. All proposals to originate taxation must originate with a Minister of the Crown, and that, in a sense, means the Crown itself.
Why should any local authority object to a limitation of its powers in this respect? If a Bill is sensible and reasonable, and if the Minister, who has the duty of looking through it, is satisfied that

it does not impose a new or improper charge, he may be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to table a Financial Resolution to cover it. That is all we are asking. I believe that there are 19 Bills which might be affected by the Amendment of this Standing Order. If any of them involve charges which are so substantial that the Minister may have difficulty in framing a Financial Resolution, then the mere terms of that Financial Resolution, if he can frame it, will bring the matter to our attention and we shall know what we are doing.
I strongly reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that the Government should reconsider this question. It is not a party matter. It should be regarded as preserving for the benefit of all political parties who might hold office in this House, effective control over the financial machinery. If we look at other countries where control is lax, we shall see that all sorts of things happen which could not possibly happen here. I again ask the Minister who is in charge of this matter whether he will not again think over the matter. There is no particular hurry. A lot of the Bills have been blocked for entirely different reasons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am not referring to the Bills which I blocked and which contained proposals which I thought were undesirable. I have not blocked the extension Bills. I have taken no part in that. It would not matter if they were held up for a few weeks while the Government applied their mind to the question again to see whether they could get something better than they have put before us tonight.
Take this Standing Order Amendment:
Standing Order 156B, line 2, leave out from 'authorising' to 'have' in line 6, and insert:
'Expenditure by a local authority which would or might operate to increase the sums payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant …'
That wording completely answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). If it does not increase the charge, no Financial Resolution; if it does increase it, we ought to know about it, because it is money for which we are responsible. It is not money for which


the ratepayers as such are responsible, and that is why we should retain control. It is money which we, by our votes, have to provide. Those who provide the money should call the tune. The Government are proposing that we are not to have the power to control the raising of the money because we cannot control the spending of it; but the responsibility will be thrown upon us.
If a Motion before this House is not raising any charge, the point about control does not arise. It only arises if the charge is being raised. That is where the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, missed the point—a very rare occasion. [Laughter.] I do not know what the cachinnation is about. I hope that those who are in charge of this Measure will respond to the appeal which has been made, not in any party sense, by many hon. Members in this House that the matter should be reconsidered before we lose control of an important financial restriction on the expenditure of local authorities which, in turn, may fall upon us.

7.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) bring the House back to the constitutional aspect of this matter. This is a House of Commons matter rather than one of party controversy. It is natural that hon. Members sitting on the same benches should hold different points of view and I say in all deference to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—who has just joined us much to our satisfaction—that had he been in the last Parliament, he would have approached this matter in the same attitude of suspicion and alertness as I do and as I hope all hon. Members do.
This is a matter for the private Member. I submit to hon. Members, on whatever benches they sit, that it is good for private Members to be particularly alert when any change of any sort is suggested in Standing Orders, even when that change has been agreed and negotiated through the usual, or indeed the unusual, channels. Hon. Gentlemen who sit on those benches should always remember that the Treasury Bench is peopled by Ministers, and the Opposition Front Bench by ex-Ministers who, overnight,

may become once again Members of the Government. The history of the last 50 years, and certainly the history of the time of any hon. Member now in the House, is of steady encroachment by the Executive over the private Member. That has been Parliamentary history throughout the 20th century. We have witnessed, not only from one type of Government but from them all, small, piecemeal amendments to Standing Orders all of which have had the effect of removing from the private Member his authority to assist in governing the country.
On this occasion, it is a Government proposal. I want to remind right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they really must rid themselves of the mentality which saw them through the last Parliament. I would remind them, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who, I thought, was much too apt to swallow this proposal, that a Select Committee consisting of hon. Members of all parties which was set up to revise Standing Orders in the last Parliament, brought forward agreed proposals and was steam-rollered by the Lord President of the Council, who amended Standing Orders to suit himself and to suit the operations of the Government in the last House. That is a matter of history. They were alterations very much for the worse. For instance, the abolition of the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions deprived private Members of an important opportunity for criticising financial matters.
We have now before us such another proposal, but the Leader of the House and his right hon. and hon. Friends really must realise that this period of tyranny is over and that proper parliamentary government has been brought out of the cold storage in which it was placed for the past four and a half years. If hon. Gentlemen did not realise it before, they should realise it after the happenings of last night. They can no longer ride roughshod over democratic government and try to stop parliamentary institutions from working. That day is over.
So, without going into the merits of this Standing Order—[Interruption.] There is a far greater issue than that, and even the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) will realise it when he thinks it over. The issue is not so much what will happen to local authorities but what is to


happen to the House of Commons and to private Members of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) made a very reasonable proposal that the matter should be looked at again. At this stage that is a request to His Majesty's Government. Behind that request, of course, lie other measures and methods by which the views of the Opposition can be assisted to prevail. It would be a pity if the House were to sit too long into the watches of the night on this Order, or on others on the Order Paper. I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a sagacious Minister who is shortly to embark on a long pilgrimage through the various stages of the Finance Bill, will realise the importance of being on good terms with the Opposition thus early and will realise that the Closure and the Guillotine are things of the past now in their effective operation.
Proper co-operation between the two sides of the House can work marvels. Therefore let the Government not attempt any dictatorial tactics tonight because 29th March may become 30th March—history has a habit of repeating itself—and we do not want to see the Prime Minister in a white sheet every afternoon after Questions. What a pity that would be. Back benchers on both sides of the House should assert their rights in this matter. They should say to the Government, and any Government which may succeed next week or in a fortnight's time, in the most emphatic language that when it comes to the encroachment of the Executive private Members must resist it. Standing Orders should not be altered except by agreement, certainly between the two Front Benches and, of course, if possible, with the agreement of hon. Members in all parts of the House. That is our task and our duty as private Members, and I therefore hope that the Minister will leap to his feet and grant the reasonable request of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire so that the House may pass to other business.

7.55 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: I wish to join in the appeal to the Financial Secretary to reconsider this, not perhaps for the same rather emphatic reasons as those advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend

the Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite). It seems to me, particularly judging from the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), that there is a danger of a misunderstanding of one very important point of principle involved in the proposal. I yield to no one in my desire to see the powers of local authorities not only maintained but restored to what they were in past years, but it is not correct to suggest that our objection to what is being done now is in any way inconsistent with that point of view.
The effect of the alteration to Standing Orders which is proposed is not merely to leave local authority powers where they are, but to confer on local authorities a power which, so far as I know, they have never before possessed, the power to promote legislation which will automatically involve a charge on public funds without any Financial Resolution or other restriction placed upon it by this House.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in the example which he gave. His example of the effect of the transfer of part of an area from area A to area B will only be correct if the two areas are alike in character. The common extension of boundaries is the extension of an urban area into a rural area, and such an extension may very well involve, and almost certainly will involve, the provision of extra services, which in turn will automatically attract a grant from the Equalisation Fund. Because the passage of a Bill of the kind contemplated can, and in most cases will, have the effect of attracting grants outside the control of Parliament, I believe that we are conferring upon local authorities a power which they have never before enjoyed and which I believe they never should enjoy.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Jay: Perhaps the House would wish me briefly to reply. I entirely share the desire of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) to retain the strictest possible Parliamentary and Treasury control, but I think—here I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—that he and the hon. and gallant Member for Bristol. North-West (Lieut.-Commander


Braithwaite), in his non-party speech, were seeing things a little out of perspective.
I will give one or two reasons for supposing that. In the first place, what we are discussing tonight is not the exemption of local authority Private Bills from a Financial Resolution in any case where they increase the local authority's expenditure. We are merely discussing the very much narrower point of Bills which alter local authorities' boundaries. The larger question has already been decided by this House in 1948, and I believe it was so decided without opposition and without debate. Therefore, presumably the Tory Party as represented in this House did not feel very strongly about the point at that time. In addition, as I have pointed out, precisely the same provision as we are proposing to apply for England and Wales today has since 1948 applied to Scotland. Indeed, it was in a sense accidental—because the Boundary Commission was in existence in 1948 and is not in existence now—that what is proposed now was not introduced two years ago.
Secondly, there is not so much substance in the argument of the hon. Gentleman because, although we are not merely discussing changes which are inevitably small, it will, of course, normally be the case that, since the increase in one local authority area must inevitably involve a decrease in another local authority area, whereas the expenditure by and the grant to one may be increased, there will be an offsetting reduction in the expenditure by, and the grant to, the other.

Sir H. Williams: Not necessarily.

Mr. Jay: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is not necessarily so, but—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not what he said 20 minutes ago? Then, in commending these proposals, he said there was no need for the Minister to express a view before Second Reading since he could not fail to express one during the Committee stage, as further national expenditure would be involved. He is now adopting the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, which is contrary to the argument he used first.

Mr. Jay: No, it is not contrary; it is perfectly consistent to say that the expenditure

of the one local authority may be increased and that the Minister will feel bound to approve that increase, and to say at the same time that the expenditure of the other local authority, whose boundary is also affected, may decrease. It may not necessarily happen but it may happen, and it is consistent to say both things at the same time.
Thirdly, the major point which hon. Members opposite appear to have missed is that it is quite untrue to say that the change in local authority expenditure automatically, without any Parliamentary control or opportunity for Parliamentary intervention, involves a charge on public funds. These Private Bills will at a later stage after the Committee stage, come before the whole House and there is the ordinary opportunity for Parliament at that stage to amend or, if Parliament wishes, to reject them. Therefore, Parliamentary control is retained, and not merely Parliamentary control but what the hon. Gentleman called the initiative of the Crown in proposing expenditure. If the Minister does not wish the Bill to go through, and on the assumption that the Government command a majority in the House of Commons—which will no doubt normally be the case—there is the ordinary opportunity for Parliamentary control at that point.

Sir H. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman give any case he has known where a Government has opposed in the Lobby any Private Bills in the last 25 years?

Mr. Jay: I am saying that there is every opportunity to do so if it wishes. Nevertheless, as I share the aims of the hon. Gentleman in this matter—to preserve the principle of Parliamentary control—I shall be glad to consider the practical suggestion he put forward in so far as it is not inconsistent with the terms of this Motion. I cannot go further than that, and I must ask the House to pass this Motion both because there are a number of Bills urgently needing attention which should go forward, and also because the case for this change has been made out this evening by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the light of that assurance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we do not propose to carry this to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of ways and Means.]

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before the House proceeds to a discussion of this Bill it would be of great assistance to hon. Members if you would be so good as to give some guidance as to the possible scope of the Debate. I submit that the Ruling that Mr. Speaker gave on 22nd February last year on the previous Bill promoted by the Transport Commission covers the Debate in this case, but I shall be grateful for your guidance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I thank the hon. Gentleman for warning me that he intended to raise this point. The Debate may extend beyond the contents of the Bill, though it must remain related to its purpose and not traverse the constitution and power of the Commission, which has been settled already by Parliament.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that is the Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave on the occasion I have mentioned, and therefore that Ruling in its fullness covers this Debate.
It is a little surprising in present circumstances that the British Transport Commission should at this moment be bringing forward this Bill. I think all hon. Members fully appreciate the gravity of the financial position, at least of the railway side of the Transport Commission, and it is with the railway side that this Bill mainly, though not exclusively, deals. Hon. Members in most quarters of the House are concerned not only at the grave and increasingly difficult financial position of our railways, but even more perhaps by the inevitable repercussions of that situation upon all our national economy. It is against that background, with the grave issues concerned still unsettled, with one of the gravest of them still awaiting a decision on the desk of the Minister, that the Transport Commission come forward with a Bill which, if this House passes it, will give them

authority among other things for the expenditure of money upon works and for the carrying on of many activities, most of which, however admirable, cost money.
This House would be failing in its duty to the people it represents outside if it gave a Second Reading to this Bill without enquiring further as to the position and intentions of the Commission. If we in this House give a Second Reading to this Bill, and in due course pass it into law, we place upon our own shoulders responsibility for the continuance of the Commission along these lines and for the consequences of its so continuing. Therefore, it is right for hon. Members before passing this Bill, to inquire pretty drastically into the proposals of the Commission for rectifying the serious position in which they now find themselves, whosoever may be at fault for that.
Perhaps I should sum it up in this way, that we start our discussion on the basis that the body promoting this Bill is on a non-stop run to bankruptcy and that we must insist—as we would in the case of any body, state owned or privately owned, which came before Parliament with a Bill of this character—on discovering how that Commission hope to be able to find themselves in the financial position to carry out the proposals contained in this Bill as well as to cary out their other duties. It is particularly important that this should be done in the case of the Transport Commission because I am certain that the Minister will agree with me that it has been his consistent policy to shelter the Commission as far as possible from inquiries in this House.
It is, therefore, particularly right that, when the Commission comes to this House for Parliamentary powers, hon. Members should take advantage of the opportunity so given to investigate further than the policy of the right hon. Gentleman always permits. We are, as it were, the shareholders at a meeting of this concern; at any rate, we are the representatives of the shareholders—I very nearly said, the trustee in bankruptcy—and it is important that we should take this opportunity of examining the situation.
Now, what are—I hope that the Minister will take an early opportunity to intervene and help us on this matter—the proposals by which the Transport


Commission hope to raise sufficient financial resources to enable them to carry out even the proposals set out in this Bill? As I understand it, almost their only major proposal, almost their only proposal consonant in scale with the size of the problem, is to raise charges of one sort or another; to raise charges both for those people who pay their fares upon the railways and also, if one looks at Clause 28 of the Bill, of those philosophers who seek to evade that obligation.
It is our first duty to analyse whether that is the right way to achieve what it is sought to do. Of course, it is a great temptation to a great monopoly, when it gets into financial difficulty, to put up charges. Indeed, it is one of the most serious disadvantages of monopoly that that is so. The questions we must ask ourselves before giving authority for this Bill are, whether those proposals work, whether they will, in fact, get the Commission out of their financial difficulties and, equally, the question of whether those proposals will not, even though they get the Commission out of their difficulties, inflict serious harm on the nation, which in another capacity all of us here represent.
The Minister will recall that he and I have discussed this matter before. He will recall that some years ago we had a Debate upon a statutory instrument under which, shortly before nationalisation, the right hon. Gentleman gave authority for the raising of passenger fares.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I see the right hon. Gentleman recalls that occasion. He will recall that I took it upon myself to warn him that the effect of raising those fares would not be to improve the financial position of our railways. I warned him that it seemed, to me at least, that a concern whose trading activities were diminishing was singularly ill-advised if it raised its charges to its customers; that that process, instead of raising revenue, would diminish it; and that, instead of stimulating trade, would discourage it.
What has happened? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention in that connection to the observations of the very able man whom he has placed in charge of the Railway Executive, Sir Eustace Missenden, who had, as the right hon.

Gentleman knows, a career of great distinction with the Southern Railway and who, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say, was a very fine choice for the responsible job which he holds. In referring to the transport situation last summer, Sir Fustace said this:
During the Summer months just past, we have provided a fine train service, all things considered, and it is somewhat disappointing to all of us that for one reason or another we have not conveyed as many passengers as we had hoped.
The reason, I submit, is the reason which I warned the Minister across the Floor of the House a few years ago would be the reason: that if passenger fares were raised, as was done despite the warning of my hon. Friends, traffics would be diminished. I think the right hon. Gentleman can now see the result of that policy in those words I have quoted of Sir Eustace Missenden. It is against that proved experience—it is not a matter now of logical argument, but of proved fact; it is against that background that the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with this question of the proposed rise in railway freight charges, which is, as I mentioned a moment ago, still before the right hon. Gentleman. It is, perhaps, appropriate that hon. Members who feel strongly about this proposal should take this opportunity of stressing their views upon the right hon. Gentleman before he takes irrevocable decisions.
Is it not the fact that, without doubt, what happened with passenger fares will happen with freight; that we will discourage inevitably that margin of traffic which so often makes the difference between profit and loss? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, because practical examples are sometimes of very great use, to pay a little attention to a particular case, which by happy chance came to me today, the case of a constituent of mine, particulars of whom I should be happy to forward to the right hon. Gentleman, who wrote to me this morning in these terms:
I had occasion to send approximately 3 tons 10 cwt. of machinery from High Wycombe to"—
it is a place in the Northern kingdom and I apologise for my pronunciation of it—
Monifieth, near Dundee"—

Mr. H. Hynd: Monifeef.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his pronunciation of the name. The great advantage of this House is that it has an expert upon every subject. My constituent continued:
and went to the expense of having it cased for rail transport. An identical consignment was ready the following week but I had no means of casing it and therefore sent it by Road Transport, door to door. The cost by Rail was £30 0s. 4d. and the cost by Road Transport under £19. Can the Railway Authorities wonder why they cannot attract custom on such conditions.
That is the type of thing of which most hon. Members will have had experience in their own constituencies, that this very high level of freight charges inevitably drives traffic away. What is so very alarming about this is that it happens that this policy of raising freight charges is not to be confined to the railways; that it is, indeed, the intention of the body promoting this Bill not to seek to check the drop in traffic on the railways by reducing railway rates, but by the infinitely more pernicious method of raising road haulage charges to something like a comparable level.' The House will no doubt recall—

Mr. Pargiter: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how the questions now being raised even remotely refer to the words contained in the Bill? It seems to me that the question of revenue does not arise and cannot be established.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would respectfully submit that this is the position: that the Transport Commission are bringing forward a Bill which will inter alia involve the expenditure of a great deal of money. It is surely not only in Order—but, indeed, the duty of—this House, before giving assent to the Motion, to satisfy itself that the financial means of carrying out the proposals of the Bill will be available.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In my view, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was not going beyond the Ruling which I gave at the beginning of the Debate, which, as perhaps hon. Members heard, had been given on a previous occasion by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I was saying when the hon. Member intervened, it appears that the policy—in my view, the

policy which will not prove to be a policy able to finance these proposals—is to raise road haulage charges in order, it is hoped, to offset the disparity between road and rail. I rely for that upon the words spoken by learned counsel, who, on the instructions of the British Transport Commission, appeared before the tribunal early in January of this year in connection with the proceedings the result of which is now on the desk of the right hon. Gentleman. The learned counsel said, no doubt on the instructions of the Commission:
I am told that we are putting up road charges where we can, and that we will continue to do so.
That was plain enough, and if learned counsel spoke without the instructions of the Commission on that decisive point of policy, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the earliest possible opportunity to repudiate those words, because until they are repudiated they throw a discouraging light upon the financial measures behind the Bill.
I ask the House to look at this question a little from the point of view of public policy. One thing is inevitable if this process continues, and that is that the cost of production, particularly of our heavy industries, will be raised—transport as hon. Members know, plays a very large part in the costs of steel; coal—itself an item in the costs of production of other industries; agricultural produce and so on; and at a time when, as all hon. Members agree, the stimulation of our competitive power on the world market is not merely desirable, but an essential of national survival, it seems a terrible thing that this great transport monopoly should be using the vast powers vested in it by this House to inflate the cost of production of every industrial process in this country.
If hon. Members prefer, to the point of view of an hon. Member on this side of the House, the measured periods of the newly published Economic Survey—which is so newly published that it has perhaps some little validity—they will see that it says, under what are after all stated to be the conclusions of His Majesty's Government:
This competitive power rests today largely upon the price advantage resulting from the present rates of exchange and will be diminished with every rise in the United Kingdom price level.


They go on to say in the final paragraph:
The Government … regard … as of vital importance … increased efficiency and lower costs.
How on earth is British industry to produce lower costs if the item of transport costs is not only to rise here and there, but to be deliberately raised as a result of the considered decision of the great monopoly which controls our transport system? That is an issue to which hon. Members must address their minds and, of course, an even greater degree of responsibility rests on the right hon. Gentleman.
There is another aspect of this matter. There are proposals put forward at the moment in connection with the London area. I appreciate that it would be undesirable, and perhaps out of order, to discuss those particular proposals which the London Transport Executive have put forward, because they are still, I understand, awaiting discussion before the Tribunal. However that may be, it is common knowledge that those proposals, which would involve raising £3,500,000 more from the travelling public, are simply part and parcel of these consistent proposals which the Government put forward. In connection, not only with London, but with every great metropolitan area, it is a very important factor from this point of view.
In the private budgets of workers in urban areas travel is a very large item. It is an extremely important item to workers in my constituency, many of whom have to travel long distances to work. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman in all frankness that a policy which will raise those sort of charges, suburban fares and so on, is completely incompatible with any attempt to maintain a wage freeze because the pressure so put on individuals, already living on a very narrow margin, would be quite intolerable and it will be impossible for them with the best will in the world to co-operate in the proposals put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Harrison: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if the costs of producing the transport service cannot be met in any other way, there should be an increase in the price of this particular commodity of convenience? Would he agree to paying the economic price for this service or would

he inform us in what other way he suggests we could get the money to keep the service running?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member has been good enought to anticipate some later remarks I was going to make, but I will answer the direct point he has raised at once. Of course if there is no other measure which human ingenuity can find of putting the finances of our transport system upon a sound basis the question of charges would have to be considered, but the effect of such a rise in charges would be so disastrous that it is the duty of the Commission and of the Minister to take every step to prevent that necessity from arising. I hope to offer one or two suggestions in due course and I am grateful to the hon. Member for intervening with that extremely relevant question.
In connection with the proposals for, as the right hon. Gentleman so nicely puts it, integration of road and rail, I wish to raise a point in the hope that he will be able to deny it. In a newspaper closely associated with His Majesty's Government, the "Daily Mirror," on 27th March, an article was published which purports to give the intentions of His Majesty's Government and indicates that the difficulties of the Transport Commission are to be met by a short-term loan.
The short-term loan would be to enable the railways to carry on over say, the next three years, … The plan, it is believed, would be for the loan to be repaid out of a special charge or tax levied on road passenger transport.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not fall back on the pretext that statements as to taxes must await the Chancellor's Budget statement. I hope he will be in a position to deny the suggestion outright. It is a very dangerous proposal and if it is untrue it would be in the interests of our transport system to deny it at once.
The great issue before the House is whether we must accept the proposal of the Transport Commission as inevitable, and, in answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, if they are inevitable then it is, as Mr. Phillip Guedalla once put it, unwise to attempt to avoid the inevitable. But is it inevitable? Has everything been done to put the financial position of the Commission in a proper position? One issue immediately rises to


my mind. During the proceedings before the Tribunal to which I have made reference Sir Walter Monckton, appearing for one of the interests concerned, cross-examining the representatives of the Commission, pointed out that whereas in 1938, 550,000 men on the railways were sufficient to secure the movement of 298 million tons of freight, in 1948, 650,000 men—100,000 more—were required to move 276 million tons of freight—22 million tons less. It would appear prima facie at least that there is there some possible inefficiency.

Mr. Ellis Smith: A shorter working week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If it is due to bad organisation or a wastage of man-hours due to organisation, at anyrate those figures do call for inquiry before this House can assent to the policy of the Commission. Are we satisfied that the Commission organises its affairs really efficiently to do the job?
I have been very much struck with the fact that the old feeling of loyalty and enthusiasm which the old railway companies were able to evoke—particularly because I have some family connection with the Southern Railway which my father-in-law served for many years, and I knew from him the extreme spirit of loyalty in serving this country which was well shown by these railway men when working under bombardment—is to some extent being lost, inevitably perhaps under an organisation so vast as the present one. That spirit of loyalty, that team spirit, is not merely an inestimable quality; it is of very considerable economic value, and it causes men not only to do their duty, but to do more when necessity requires. I have the feeling that, to some extent, that team spirit has been lost under the Railway Executive. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he cares to follow that up, to notice particularly the results of this amalgamation down in the extreme south-west of England where the old Southern and Great Western Railways overlap. I think he will there find evidence in support of what I have said.
Then, are we sure—if I may say it once again—that higher fares have produced better revenue? After all, it costs nearly as much to run an empty train as to run a full one; and most hon. Members, who

arrange their travelling to as to avoid Bank Holidays, know perfectly well how empty are our long-distance trains. If fares were reduced, we should get much more revenue for very little extra expenditure. Are we sure that all new sources of revenue are being looked for and that all old sources of revenue are being retained? I ask that question because I have received a communication from a constituent of mine who for many years advertised his concern—a small hotel—on the back of railway time tables. He has received from the Southern Region of the Transport Commission a letter dated early last year stating:
The Railway Executive has directed that public timetables shall cease to carry any commercial advertisements. In view of that decision, I have to advise you with much regret that I shall be unable to insert your advertisements in future editions of the timetables.
The amounts involved are no doubt trifling compared with the vast scale of railway expenditure, but does not that symbolise something? Here we have a concern with a vast and increasing deficit, and which is seeking to meet that deficit by increasing its charges to the public, by some general ruling deliberately dispensing with a source of revenue which, at any rate, brought in some money to its predecessors.
The incident seems to me worthy of recalling to this House, not, as I say, for the small amount involved, but because, if this can happen in one case which happens to come to the personal attention of an hon. Member, how many similar things may be taking place which do not come to the attention of hon. Members? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully with the Commission why it is that sources of revenue, however small, should in the present circumstances be disregarded in deference to some abstract principle of, as I see it, no particular validity. That seems to me to be the issue before the House.
I know that several of my hon. Friends are anxious to deal with important issues that arise on particular Clauses of the Bill, several of which, I am glad to say, have not escaped their experienced scrutiny. But, in opening this Debate, I did want to confine myself, as I sought so to do, to this great main issue. Is the financial policy of the Transport Commission now being conducted in a way which will


secure the financial stability of the Commission, and, what is infinitely more important, in a way which will assist our nation's economic struggle for survival? It is those questions which must be in the background of the minds of all hon. Members who in their responsibility have to decide upon a Measure put forward by this Commission. I know the right hon. Gentleman will believe me if I say that no one will be more relieved than I if he is now able to indicate to the House that steps are at last being taken to remedy a position which, as I say, involves not only a great nationalised industry, but must also involve the future of our industrial system itself.

8.34 p.m.

Sir Austin Hudson: I am very glad of this opportunity to break my enforced silence of four and a half years—a silence enforced by the fact that I lost my seat—by saying a word or two on this Bill. As many old Members of the House know, I was connected with the Ministry of Transport for some four and a half years before the war. One of the things which has surprised me on coming back, is the change in the functions of that Department after 1945. In my day railways were practically never dealt with. If trains ran headlong into each other, then perhaps a Question might be asked in the House and the Minister might give an answer. At that time the railways were run by different companies and we had to deal, not so much with them, as with the vast and increasing road traffic of this country.
I want to narrow my short contribution to the Debate on this Bill to the question of London. The tabling of this Bill gives the House one of its few opportunities to discuss some of the work of the British Transport Commission. A very important body to the Londoner under that Commission is the London Transport Executive. The Preamble to the Bill lays down that it is the duty of the Commission to
provide or secure or promote the provision of an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport and port facilities within Great Britain for passengers and goods. …
The Bill lists a number of ways in which it hopes to bring this about. I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said about the importance of

the transport system to everybody, and particularly to Londoners. It was brought home to me today by a letter I received from a constituent who was not concerned with this Bill, but with a proposition that in the Budget reasonable travelling expenses should be allowed against Income Tax. He told me that his income is about £5 a week, but owing to the fact that he is living some way out his season ticket costs him some £20 a year. He pointed out what a difference that made to him, living outside the centre of London, compared with somebody doing an equal job but living right on top of his work. Therefore, I make no apology for raising this question—of Londoners' fares—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question of London passenger transport fares is before a tribunal at the moment. It is sub judice; so I do not think we can discuss it.

Sir A. Hudson: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I think that one of the ways in which the British Transport Commission hope to finance this Bill is to raise another £3,500,000 from Londoners. At least they hope to raise that sum.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That being sub judice, we must not discuss it tonight.

Sir A. Hudson: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. Part of the Title of the Bill is "to confer further powers on the Commission." Some of us are not entirely satisfied that the Commission are using wisely the powers which they now possess.
There is a Clause of the Bill dealing with the County of London. It is in Clause 5, page 5. It deals with certain works which are to be carried out on the Northern Line both at the Oval Station and at Wandsworth. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us something about those works. Apparently the works at the Oval Station have something to do with the deep-level shelter works. I was always under the impression that those deep-level shelters were not actually built as shelters but were part of the extension of the underground railway which is to come later. I do not know whether that is so or not.
There have been—and the Minister knows this—frequent requests to the Minister and later to the London Transport Executive that this Northern Line


should be pushed further towards the Lewisham area. I understood that the reason that has not been done up to now has had something to do with the wetness of the land. I am told that it is extremely difficult to push a tube through the very marshy and shaley ground in that area. I should like to know whether these works at the Oval, which are comparatively small, are in any way connected with this proposition. If so, it would be a great blessing to the people in those parts. It would relieve congestion and it would also help to save some of the enormous cost which, as the Minister knows, has to be undertaken in that part of London in the uprooting of the tramway system and replacing it with 'buses. I do not know whether I should be in Order in telling the Minister that if he could give any information as to the date of that desirable change-over. I should be more than delighted.
There are two other points on which I should like to say a few words. So far as I can make out, Clause 28 deals with fines of different kinds. In subsection (2), page 18, the Transport Commission seek to take powers to increase certain fines. I have looked at the Act of 1936, and I find that the fine that is being increased from 40s. to £5 applies to people who do not show their tickets. Further on there is another fine of 40s. which is being increased to £5, and that applies to people who try to leave the train without showing their tickets. I should like to know why, further on, there is this terrific increase from £5 to £20 which appears to be for a second offence of trying to leave a tram, train or bus without showing one's ticket. Obviously there must be some reason for inserting that provision. I should like to know whether there has been an enormous increase in the number of these offences. An increase from £5 to £20 is pretty steep. I hope that no hon. Member will think that I am trying to encourage anybody who goes in for that undesirable practice of trying to travel free; but the point is one which I think should be explained.
The next point concerns Clause 33, on page 19. Why do the British Transport Commission contract out of the Town and Country Planning Act? We should all like to contract out, and here

they calmly insert in the Clause a provision to the effect that the enactment shall be deemed to have been passed before the coming into force of the Town and Country Planning Act. I should like to know if that is to be a precedent for all these public commissions, and I should like to know the reason for this action. It may be that they are contracting out because they do not like the Act, but they seem to be only people who are allowed to do so.
I hope that the next time we have a British Transport Commission Bill—and I presume this will be a yearly event—they will have a better record of achievement than they have to date. The ground was very ably surveyed in the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. I think we all recognise that there are many hon. Members who are profoundly disturbed about what is happening on the railways, on the London Passenger Transport network and in other places—not only about the financial happenings but also, as my hon. Friend said, about the vast staffs which live and have their being under the Transport Commission. I hope that later in the Debate, the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions I have endeavoured to put to him.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: It is satisfactory that, even at a rather late hour in our proceedings, we are able to discuss so broadly and widely the affairs of the British Transport Commission. There are one or two points I wish to contribute to the Debate, and I shall do so, briefly, since a number of other hon. Members wish to take part in the general discussion. This Bill contains many provisions and proposals which will ultimately save the British Transport Commission quite a lot of money. For instance, there is one proposal on page 4, concerning work in the city and the county borough of Nottingham, which, if carried out, will be of great convenience to railway operation in that district and will, in the not-too-far-distant future, save the Commission a considerable amount of money. I therefore welcome this opportunity to support the Measure, as I am sure it will ultimately be supported by all sections of the House.
I should like to comment on the staffing figures quoted by the hon. Member


for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He mentioned, accurately so far as I can remember, that the staff in 1938 was 550,000–550,111, I think, is the actual figure—and he also referred to the present-day staff as being 610,000.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures I quoted were given by Sir Walter Monckton before the tribunal recently. They related to April, 1948, and they were 650,000.

Mr. Harrison: The position today is that the figure is 610,000, if my memory serves me correctly. Let us, however, take the figure of 650,000 quoted in the tribunal proceedings. I want to draw the attention of the hon. Member and of the House to the fact that railwaymen today are working shorter hours and are enjoying longer holidays. If we compare the pre-war figures with those of today for both the numbers of the staff and the amount of traffic per tonnage mile—and even taking into consideration the fact that the number of passengers is less—we find that the railwaymen are doing more work today because more traffic is being handled by fewer men. That is the only accurate method of assessing what is being done on the railways, and that is the fact that we find. It is a matter of great importance in considering the scientific organisation of railway operation and control at the present time.
Another matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that I should like to take up, is that of advertising. I think it is noticeable to everybody who travels by rail that there has been an extraordinary improvement in railway advertising during the last two years. We read in the very authoritative Report of the Transport Commission that a special study has been made of the subject and a special effort made to extend the profitable lines of advertising on railway properties and in railway conveyances. I think we ought to congratulate the Transport Commission on that, not criticise it, as the hon. Member attempted to do. Particularly I do not think we should criticise by taking what seems to me to be a small isolated case for criticism, as he did. He took the timetable advertisements. If we consider other aspects of railway advertising, and the spread of railway advertising as a whole, we see that the British Transport

Commission have really made an effort to increase income from it.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Could the hon. Gentleman say by how much the advertising revenue has been increased during the last two or three years?

Mr. Harrison: I could not possibly, without notice, indicate the exact amount extra that has been made by advertising on railway premises, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of an illustration given by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) when he spoke about the old-fashioned English tavern on wheels to advertise the restaurant car service on long-distance passenger trains. The hon. Gentleman criticised the tavern on wheels very severely as a rather stupid methods of advertising. I think he so described it. I am not discussing now the merits of that particular attempt at advertising. I take it to illustrate thefact—

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I did not accuse them of advertising anything. I thought the purpose was to sell beer.

Mr. Harrison: The point of the whole structure was to advertise the fact that there was beer—and railway travel—to sell. It was an effort in advertising. It was probably not particularly successful, but I take that instance to illustrate the fact that the British Transport Commission have widened railway advertising on stations and all over their premises.

Mr. David Renton: Misplaced zeal.

Mr. Harrison: Maybe. I am not discussing the merits of any particular form of advertising, but answering the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames by saying that the Commission have made an effort to increase revenue by advertising.
The last point is that of rail rates—freight and passenger. It seems to me that when hon. Members on the other side criticise the operations of the Commission they always get stuck on this question, and say that it is wrong to raise rates, whether for passengers or goods. I agree with them that, normally, it is most undesirable to raise passenger or freight rates. I put this question to them, although they never seem to answer it.
Irrespective of any economies which we may make in administration or operation, how can we run the railways without charging a really economic rate for both passengers and goods? The alternative to that is to subsidise the railways to enable them to operate at anything like an economic cost. If a subsidy is the alternative put forward by hon. Members opposite, I wish they would make that clear.
I do not think that is the answer. I do not think that any subsidy should be given to rail transport. I think that all we should ask for is an economic rate for both goods and passengers. Up to the present, we have never enjoyed an economic rate in the railway service. We have always carried goods and passengers under-price. To suggest that the difficulties of the railways are due to any inability to organise the railways seems to me completely to ignore the fact that road transport is cheaper, and will remain cheaper no matter what we do, in comparison with railway costs. Therefore, to submit that there is any lack of administrative organising ability on the part of the Transport Commission because road traffic is cheaper, seems to ignore the economic and geographical position of both forms of traffic.
I suggest to the House that it should recognise very seriously that the railways today, owing to very low fares both for goods and passengers, cannot possibly pay their way, and without integration of the services as between road and rail we cannot hope to continue to run the rail services. No one could contemplate for a moment a position arising in which the railways had to curtail their operations to such an extent that rail traffic would virtually cease in this country. We have a serious problem to face and this Bill, although it may involve the spending of money, is designed particularly to assist the rail section of the British Transport Commission to do its job more efficiently than at present.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: I gather from the observations of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that he and his hon. Friends are reluctant to give a Second Reading to this Bill unless they are satisfied that the British Transport

Commission are making very essential economies and taking all possible steps to improve their revenue. I was disappointed by the tenor of his speech, because after making a series of complaints he made only one constructive suggestion, namely, that greater economies should be effected, and the Minister should call on the Transport Commission to work with that end in view. This House will have to make up its mind as to what its attitude is to be towards British Railways. There are two courses open. One is, by negative and destructive criticism, to denigrate the work of the Commission, executives and the railway employees; the other is to engage in positive and helpful suggestions to encourage the Commission to improve and extend the railway section of the transport industry.
I turn for some of my information to the document quoted by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—the report of the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal sitting as a consultative committee under Section 82 of the Transport Act. Their report is dated 6th and 16th February, and on reading it I observe that in 1949 the Railway Executive achieved no less than £7 million in economies, and in the year ended November, 1949, a reduction of staff of 27,000. Obviously it cannot continue at that rate, although a further economy of between £2 million and £3 million is anticipated for 1950.
The Tribunal advised the Minister to grant these additional charges because they could not reasonably anticipate further economies of a substantial character. No fewer that 28 representative bodies asked to be heard at that inquiry, and Sir Walter Monckton and 11 other eminent members of the legal profession submitted evidence, and the Tribunal reported to the Minister that after hearing that evidence they had no alternative but to advise him to agree to the charges. On page 13 of the report it is stated:
The principal attack on the estimate for 1950 was that of the British Iron and Steel Federation, whose submission covered the objections of practically all the other critics.
If the British Iron and Steel Federation and I.C.I. will sell their products to the Railway Executive at a cost of not more than 55 per cent. over pre-war the financial state of the railways will be


very healthy. Even the latest charges agreed upon for the goods rates mean an increase of only 81 per cent. over pre-war. It was with that in mind that the Tribunal were compelled to tender the advice they gave to the Minister.

Mr. John Grimston: One of the principal products sold by one of the companies the hon. Gentleman mentioned is copper for the manufacture of fireboxes in engines. The copper is manufactured by the company he mentioned, but bought originally from the Minister of Supply, who is charging that company 400 per cent. above the pre-war price, so how on earth could that company increase its price by only 55 per cent.?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman examines the statistics relating to the consumer needs of the railway industry he will find that they are being charged 600 per cent. above pre-war for some of their essential needs, and for a number of others considerably over 100 per cent. The point I am making is that if the railway industry is not allowed to increase its charges in order to meet additional costs—and it may be a bad thing for trade as a whole to do that—then help must come from some other source. I am disappointed that hon. Members opposite have not conceded to the Commission credit for having effected these substantial economies.
Let me mention two other features. A new standard of permanent way has been adopted. It is more costly to instal, but it will require less maintenance, will last longer, give smoother riding, and will better withstand the wear and tear of heavy locomotives at high speed. That is a very desirable improvement that should have been effected many years ago. In place of the several hundred types of locomotives now in use twelve standard designs have been prepared and will be in service next year. That will bring about a tremendous economy as a long-term policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr. Harrison) pointed out, compared with 1947, more work is being done, and done faster, with less locomotives, less rolling stock, the burning of less coal and with less staff., If Members will take the trouble to examine the first Report of the Commission and the evidence given to the Tribunal, they will not be able to deny that substantial economies have

been effected, and that much has been done to co-ordinate and integrate the services.
On the last occasion when we discussed the railway section of the transport industry, much was said about decentralisation. It was asked why we did not allow each region to do its own work, and the chief regional officers to exercise to the same degree as the former general managers the right to run their particular services. I find that the chief regional officers have ample scope to exercise all the enterprise and initiative of which they are capable. They can organise special services, offer special rates and do more, in fact, than they were allowed to do under the old regime.
Reference has been made to the family spirit of the Southern Railway. That spirit was very prevalent, and it has not departed. It will be agreed that the chairman of the Railway Executive is the former general manager of the Southern Railway. Tribute has been paid to his ability, and that ability is no less because he is now serving the country and not the directors and shareholders of the Southern Railway. I suggest once more that unless we give the Transport Commission reasonable facilities to develop a long-term policy, to extend its services, to renew its stock and modernise and mechanise much of its equipment, revenue will have to be found from other sources. I am not making a threat but an earnest comment when I say that the railway employees, who are doing so much to bring the industry back to its former prosperity, will not be content to see this huge amount of money being spent on the railways without themselves having proper recognition. That recognition can be given if we are allowed to develop our resources and services. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.

9.8 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I welcome this Debate because it enables us to continue the discussion on a vital nationalised industry. It is rather interesting to observe, in passing, how Parliament seizes on some old-fashioned piece of procedure and refurbishes it to make it serve modern times. It was suggested at one time that


in order to investigate nationalised industries it was necessary to have a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament and things of that kind, but here we have a simple railway Bill of the old kind, which would not have been looked at in previous Parliaments, that gives us a magnificent opportunity to investigate one of these important nationalised industries.
I was very interested to hear from the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison) that he did not think it necessary to subsidise the railways. He thought that the railways might be made to pay on their own account. I hope to suggest something of the same sort in the course of my remarks. His speech was very different in character from the speeches made a fortnight ago by Member after Member on the other side of the House, including the Minister himself, who told us that losses should more or less be expected and made good in other directions. The hon. Member for Lichfield was almost totalitarian in his views. He said that the wishes of the Commission and of the Railway Executive should ride roughshod over all other interests. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) in his place.

Mr. Poole: I am not the hon. Member for Lichfield, and I did not say what the noble Lord said I did.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. It was the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) to whom I was referring. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, in his place. He said control should be taken off the road services in order to give parity and justice to the railways. The Minister used remarks which went to show that his whole view and sympathy was with the idea that the railways should be cushioned from competition with the roads. He said incidentally that we in the Conservative Party ought to have done something of the same kind out of the profits of the 1914–18 war.

Mr. Barnes: indicated dissent.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the right hon. Gentleman looks in HANSARD, he will see that he said something of the kind.
The persistent syndicalism of the members of the Labour Party is a distinct feature of these Debates on the nationalised services. We take a very different view and we believe that as a House of Commons we should search for a financial principle in the operation of these services. I take the view that the nationalised industries should make neither a profit nor a loss, for if they make a profit they are clearly mulcting the consumer, and if they make a loss that loss falls upon the taxpayer in some form or another. The general aim should be, after paying for the charges and providing for depreciation, to strike a balance. It seems to me that that principle must go right through the Transport Commission down to the separate services which constitute it. Therefore, we differ, because hon. Members on the other side clearly think that road and possibly other forms of transport like air services, should be made to subsidise the railways. Many hon. Members opposite are railway men, and they like the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow), in the last Debate that if the railways cannot pay they should be well padded by the roads. I believe that is quite wrong in principle.

Mr. H. Hynd: rose—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I cannot give way because there are other hon. Members who wish to speak. Road Transport whether it is nationalised or not—I hope it never will be completely—should be made a self-contained unit, and I hope the railways and docks will be self-contained, too.

Mr. H. Hynd: rose—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I really cannot give way because there are many hon. Members waiting to speak and I have still a few more things to say. That is the only way by which we can guarantee to the consumer, who is far too often forgotten by the other side of the House, absolute freedom of choice in transport, because there is no freedom of choice to the consumer once it is accepted that charges for one service should be artificially high in order to bolster up the losses of another form of transport. I arrive at the general conclusion that the railways somehow must be made to pay their way, and if they cannot pay their


way they must slowly decline in importance before other forms of transport. That situation must be accepted.
I hope it will be possible for the Transport Commission or the Railway Executive to approach the position of no profit and no loss first by means of cutting expenditure. There are some items which should be looked at. It is very pleasant to travel by rail today. There is a considerable amount of service, some of it extremely redundant. It seems to me that there are too many porters at London terminal stations. Again when one sits in the train inspectors of every sort and kind walk up and down the corridors to look at the tickets, and I am told that in the cabs of engines of not very important services there are no fewer than three men, the driver and two firemen, one to look out on one side and one to look out on the other. Those are features of railway expenditure that should be looked at. If it is necessary to keep certain branch lines for strategic purposes, the State must subsidise the railways to the extent of the expenditure on those lines. Otherwise they should be ruthlessly closed down and public road transport instituted instead.
On the question of raising revenue I can only be very brief. What my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said the other day is clearly very true. Trains must be filled, cheaper fares instituted, and some adventurous advertising indulged in by the Railway Executive. Trains running short distances from London to places 60, 80 and 100 miles away ought to be increased in speed. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and I are both interested in a borough of significance a few scores of miles north of London. The train service to that borough has deteriorated progressively since the First World War. It could not be worse than it is at present. It is not a good thing for hon. Members to dwell lengthily upon their own constituencies or upon towns in which they are interested, but that is an example of the kind of thing I mean.
Passenger train-mile receipts have fallen from 13s. 9d. in 1948 to 12s. 4½d. in 1949. That clearly shows that the policy of the Railway Executive is not sufficiently directed to filling the trains and providing an interesting holiday service

to the public. There are not nearly enough cheap fares or excursion trains, especially along the South Coast. On this question of raising revenue I am driven to the logical conclusion that some increase in freight charges is necessary, perhaps not the whole 3s. 4d. which is projected, but some part of that sum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was right in saying that some of the freight charges should come down. I think those should be the charges which are competing with the road. Heavy freight, merchandise and minerals, which the road can never or seldom take, indicate the direction in which we shall probably have to look for some increase in revenue for the railways. I am afraid that this will vitally affect costs in industry, but I cannot see any other way if we are to reach the principle of no-profit-no-loss on the railways.
If, after all this has been done, the railways continue to show a loss, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) said in a letter to "The Times" the day before yesterday, we must assume that 19th-century rail development has reached its zenith, and that some recession must be allowed to take place. After all, what is a loss which cannot be overcome by processes of economy? A loss of that kind is the measure of the public's refusal to use the services at the prices asked and a clear indication of their desire to move to other forms of transport.
Finally, I will try to express to the House what I conceive to be the real danger of nationalisation in the transport field. What nationalisation does is to refuse to acknowledge and provide against deteriorating user—it refuses to recognise the fact that that loss is there. Nationalisation maintains the status quo, freezes the facilities and the trading characteristics of the nation and stops the natural processes of change and development. Just by way of illustration, since coal nationalisation it is extremely doubtful whether enough of the national effort has gone into atomic energy, hydroelectric development and oil refining. In my view, coal has been provided with too much social capital, and since transport was nationalised, we are seeing, under the syndicalist attitude of hon. Members opposite, road services sacrificed to the railways, freight vehicle


licences reduced, the Ministry of Transport allowing deterioration to take place in the upkeep of our first-class roads, and we are finding that it is increasingly difficult for the ordinary road user either to acquire cars or the petrol to put into them.
There is no doubt whatever that laissez-faire—unrestricted competition—is by far the best way to ensure that a nation keeps abreast of the times in comparison with other nations and to ensure that new industries and new services are fostered. I am quite certain that full scale laissez-faire applied to the railways today would make short work of them and probably throw thousands of men on to the labour market. Laissez-faire does fearful social damage and it cannot be tolerated in this day and age—we are all agreed about that—but what we are doing today is to fly to the opposite extreme. We are bolstering up the status quo in rail transport to the detriment of competing transport industries. The road transport concerns are being bought up and suppressed, no private aeroplane flying is allowed, petrol applications by car users are suppressed, and so on. I wonder what would have happened if nationalisation had been applied to the stage coach and turnpike road system of the 19th century. Does anybody suppose for a moment that there would have been the magnificent rail development which has taken place? Of course not. The Government's power of control would have been associated with the old-fashioned form of industry and the new ones would never have been allowed to come into being.
I am convinced that it is quite wrong to inhibit road and rail competition. I am convinced that it is wrong to prohibit private flying, to restrict the use of petrol for cars and to send so many British-made cars overseas to sterling area countries which do not need them. I wonder who dares to maintain in the House of Commons that the railway system is the right and proper system of transport for the 20th century. Who knows, for example, whether it would not ultimately serve the interests of this nation much better if one of the great railway lines—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The noble Lord appears to be dealing with the whole principle of nationalisation,

but that is far beyond the confines of this Bill. There is a limit beyond which the noble Lord cannot go.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have gone a little wide upon nationalisation, but I am drawing to a speedy conclusion on that subject. Perhaps I may just say, in conclusion, that it might repay this country in the end if, for example, the great central line from London to Manchester were torn up, the signals dismantled and a four-lane motor road to take fast passenger and fast goods vehicles instituted in its place. That might come under laissez faire; it certainly will not come under the syndicalism of hon. Members opposite and the nationalisation policies of the State.
I do not like one sentence in the first Report of the Transport Commission, because it seems to exemplify completely what I mean about the denial of alternative forms of competition and the denial of liberty of choice of transport to the consumer. On page 25, speaking of Section 3 of the Transport Act, the Commission say:
Although the Section goes on to qualify itself by providing that the Commission are neither bound to provide any particular form of service between two points, nor prevented from making different charges according to the service provided, the obligation to allow freedom of choice seems to preclude any enforced direction of traffic to particular services contrary to the expressed wishes of customers.
I feel sure that the hon. Member for Perry Barr likes that sentence very much indeed. I regard it as highly dangerous.
The desire, expressed there clearly, is to consult the interests of scientific integration of the transport system and nothing else. On this side of the House we believe that the services provided should follow consumer interest and consumer desire and nothing else, unless it is a strategic question. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) said the other day that the best and cheapest services should be our aim. If, subject to strategic questions, the interest of the traveller points to roads or, indeed, to air—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The noble Lord is really going far beyond the confines of this Bill—

Dr. Morgan: He is flying.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: He must relate his remarks to the Bill.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have really concluded what I want to say, and I will not keep the House any longer. The proposals in this Bill, which obviously carry forward the general intentions of the Government on rail transport, ought to be looked at with great keenness and circumspection. Unless we do that, we shall not advance the transport interests of this country, and I fear that under nationalisation progress in that industry will inevitably be arrested.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for the clear, concise and all-embracing way in which he opened this Debate. I am not saying that I agree with the contentions made by the hon. Member but, nevertheless, he made the Debate wide enough for us to view the provisions here contained over a wide field. It is appropriate that I should say something in this Debate, having worked as a railwayman for just on 30 years. I was never one of two firemen on an engine though, and I believe I am the last railwayman from the footplate to enter this House. I also have a large number of railwaymen in my constituency and it is, perhaps, appropriate that I have hosts of friends among railway workers. Although my time is limited, there are some observations on the Bill which I can make, and I should like to ask one or two questions and to answer some of the things which have been said.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, in dealing with railwaymen, touched upon the question of loyalty in connection with their jobs. I think his suggestion was that there is less loyalty today than in pre-war years. As a railwayman I want to refute that statement and to try to turn the picture and to give another view. We should not forget that in the era before the last war, railwaymen very often had to suffer a great deal of degrading and intolerable conditions. During the years of depression thousands of footplate men were degraded, with a consequent loss of income and status with 10 per cent. off their wages.
We had one period, I think it was in 1932, when the trade unions actually met the four main line railway companies to agree on what percentage should be deducted from our wages in order to allow

the railways to carry on. I myself had to come to London because I became redundant in Scotland and, very much against my will, I worked in London for four years. I believe now, however, that that was a good thing, for I became more closely connected with railway trade unionism and the Labour movement and, possibly, this was responsible for my subsequent arrival at the House of Commons.
It should also be recognised that when the railways were taken over, they were completely run down after six years of total war. I know the locomotives that we were working. We could hardly do running repairs on them; far less could we get new locomotives. I know of the synthetic material which we were using, and of those struggles we had during the night shift to get war material on to the road and to centres of industry, from which it would be despatched to our troops. During those six years of total war very little re-organisation or repair work was accomplished.
I maintain that when the railways were nationalised they were handed over in a decrepit condition. We must realise and square up to it quite frankly, that until we deal with this industry as we have dealt with the mining industry, and are prepared to say that we will simply pour into it millions of pounds for capital development, we shall not have the railways equipped to do the job which they ought to be doing. We need a complete reorganisation, complete modernisation and, above all, a fuller integration between our road and rail transport and our coastwise shipping. It is simply ludicrous for any sane body which is dealing with this problem to say that they will allow road services to take the cream of the traffic and to leave what is left for the railways, and for the Opposition then to cry out that the railways must stand on their own feet.
If the railways are to be run economically, we should have that integration in order that transport as a whole may serve the needs of the people and be able to clear the deficits, wherever they appear, with the total results from traffic as a whole. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames showed antagonism to the raising of fares or other railway charges, except as a last resort. In the present development of circumstances, owing to the present economic position, we have


either to agree to raise fares and charges, or to agree that the railways shall be subsidised by the nation in order to meet their commitments. We cannot carry on in the way we have been doing.
Previous to the war we saw all over Britain posters saying, "The Railways want a square deal." We still want the railways to have a square deal, but I want to see railway workers getting a square deal from the nation. I believe we and the Minister have to face up to a very full recognition that lower-paid railwaymen must receive better remuneration for the job they are doing. That must proceed with the re-equipment, integration and modernisation of our railways. If we do this together, we shall arrive at a situation in which the needs of the nation can be served.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. De Chair: I wish to ask the Minister two questions. I realise that it is not in Order tonight to deal with the question of the raising of fares in the London area which seems so obnoxious to many of us on this side of the House. I wish to know when the London Area Consultative Committee was set up and whether the Minister has yet received any recommendations from it in respect of increasing fares in the London area. The other point about which I wish to ask is concerned with Parts 2 and 3 of the Fifth Schedule. A number of works are listed the period for the completion of which is extended by the Measure to 31st December, 1956. Can the right hon. Gentleman say why such a long period of extension is required? Is it because the London Transport Commission fear they may not be allowed to increase fares by £3,500,000 and are, therefore, reserving to themselves power to postpone these expensive works?

9.39 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): In reply to points raised by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. De Chair) I do not think for a moment that there is any connection between the date of the completion of these works and the charges scheme which is now before the Transport Tribunal. The London Area Consultative Committee was established quite recently, about a

month or six weeks ago, and, as the hon. Member has submitted the direct issue to me as to whether I have received any recommendations from them in regard to the charges scheme, I take the opportunity of making plain the function of that committee.
These consultative committees were set up under the Transport Act and they cannot make representations to the Transport Tribunal on charges schemes but they have the power to make recommendations to the Minister through the National Consultative Committee. If the London Consultative Committee desires to express any views on the charges scheme the procedure would be to submit their views to the National Committee, which can submit them direct to the Minister, who would in turn decide whether he would pass them on to the Tribunal. That procedure was adopted for the purpose of ensuring that the National Committee which has the same facilities as the Transport Commission itself for direct approach to the Minister should have before it the views of the area Committees.
In opening this Debate the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) appeared to accuse me of desiring to avoid a discussion on the affairs of the British Transport Commission. I entirely repudiate such a suggestion. No one welcomes more than I debates on the affairs of the British Transport Commission. The House is quite aware that I took the view that, although the railways were under the direct control of the Minister and thus made him responsible for the minutest detail of railway management and operation, he was in no way fit to be responsible to Parliament for that type of question.
When we consider the opportunities which this House has had since the passing of the Transport Act and in the two years during which the British Transport Commission has brought forward its annual Bill we find that hon. Members have been provided with a very wide review of its administration and affairs. Again, in the presentation of the annual accounts of the British Transport Commission, statistics and information far greater than those obtainable from any range of industries in this country have been made available. Hon. Members had another opportunity last week in a Debate


on Supply. Those four occasions proved conclusively that hon. Members are not denied the opportunity of fully reviewing the affairs of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it has been his constant policy to seek to limit Parliamentary Questions to an extreme edge, and to a far greater extent than, for example, the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Barnes: I entirely deny that. It is only a matter of day-to-day management for which the Minister has no facilities or opportunities in his own Department of accepting responsibility. With regard to broad policy and the powers and functions of the Minister, I submit that there has been adequate opportunity for discussion.
This Debate, again, has ranged over the financial problem of the railways, and as to whether the deficit is to be met by an increase in charges. In reply to a Question the other day, I stated that I was not in a position at the moment to indicate the decision of the Government whether these new charges would be accepted and operated. All the discussions that are taking place, including those in our Debate last week and today, and all the evidence submitted by the representatives of some of the major industries in this country, emphasise the seriousness of any substantial increase in railway charges at the present moment. The Government are giving full consideration to the views that have been expressed both in this House and by the representatives of traders, and are measuring the reactions or repercussions of any increased charges of that character. That does not in any way prevent me from submitting to hon. Members the problem as it is working out in fact.
The British Transport Commission have not imposed any general increase in freight rates or passenger fares since they took possession of the transport industry on 1st January, 1948. This is the first general increase in charges they have proposed. In the two years that the Commission have been responsible for the management of the railways, of London transport, of the canals and, in more recent months the taking over of long distance road haulage, they have had to include on their expenditure side all the

increased charges imposed by the coal, timber, steel, copper and any other industry for commodities used in railway operations.
In the whole of my business experience I do not know of any section of industry or of any undertaking where, as in this case, owing to the history of the industry and the conditions that Parliament has imposed on it, the management have to take into consideration increased prices of commodities without being accorded equal facilities to adjust their own prices. I am increasingly struck by the attitude of some hon. Members in these Debates on transport. They appear to think that it is perfectly normal and natural for the British Transport Commission to accept every increase in price made by other industries without increasing the Commission's own charges. Yet they think that if transport charges are increased the coal and steel and other industries are immediately entitled to pass that increased cost of transport to the consumer.
I want hon. Members to consider some figures. The pre-war cost per ton of building a locomotive was £73. Today the cost is £156 per ton. The cost of constructing carriages has increased by 150 per cent. over pre-war. The cost of constructing wagons is today 110 per cent. more than it was before the war. The railways are among the largest if not the largest consumers of British steel products. The average increase in the price of steel products used by the railways is 101 per cent. The increase in cost of non-ferrous metals needed by the railways is 187 per cent. Timber for sleepers are again a substantial item in railway costs. Something like four million sleepers a year are needed to maintain the permanent way. The price of these has increased by 343 per cent. In a range of 56 commodities used in large quantities by the railways there is an increase over the pre-war price of 145 per cent.
Whether the railways are privately owned or publicly owned, and certainly while they are publicly owned, hon. Members cannot escape the responsibility of facing a situation of that kind. I have stated, and I state again with a full sense of responsibility, that Parliament must make up its mind whether this situation is to be adjusted by an increase in the form of a subsidy, which will fall on the


taxpayer, or by the normal process followed by industrial undertakings of adjusting charges to the cost of the services they themselves receive.
I do not think there is any evidence that the British Transport Commission in its administration has in any way endeavoured to throttle or hamper its road services. The British Transport Commission already controls companies owning over 12,000 road passenger coaches in this country, and that process of acquiring road passenger undertakings will continue, despite the opposition of hon. Members opposite. The Commission has already carried out the complete acquisition of the long-distance transport, and today owns something like 40,000 commercial lorries. What right, therefore, has the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) to say that the British Transport Commission is not aware of the need and the importance of road transport services? There is no fleet on the roads today which can equal the road haulage fleet of the British Transport Commission.
In 1939 when the railways were under the management of the four main line railway companies the Transport Advisory Council, reporting on their "square deal" proposal, said:
The financial position of the railways, which has for some time past been unsatisfactory, has recently deteriorated to such an extent as to give rise to acute concern for the future stability of the companies.
That was an opinion expressed before the war. As I said in our previous Debate, the circumstances of the war obscured that situation; if the main line railway companies had had to carry on after the war they would have been facing an equally serious situation and, in my view, a much more serious situation.
It must be remembered that in the accounts of the British Transport Commission there was a contribution from the road services, and there was an economy of something like £7 million. When hon. Members quote the views of Sir Eustace Missenden, I notice that they quote only one or two paragraphs that suit their own arguments. They did not go on to quote the further statement which he made, namely:
It is a fact that the railways are being worked more efficiently today than ever before.

That is Sir Eustace Missenden's view, but the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames did not refer to that. Sir Eustace went on:
Despite the handicaps of inferior coal, shortage of material, and in some cases trained staff, the progress we have made reflects credit on all—management and staff alike—for it is only by united effort that a great business like ours can hope to solve its problems and so serve the public best.
It does not matter what test is applied to railway efficiency today. There has been a reduction of staff of something like 30,000 persons; there has been the introduction of the 44-hour week, holidays with pay, sick pay, etc. As I have stated, there was an expenditure of something like £20 million of capital to overtake the arrears of maintenance. If we take the test of operational efficiency, and if we bear in mind the reduction in staff and the overtaking of arrears of maintenance neglected during the war, I venture to suggest that the efficiency test is discharged.
I hope hon. Members, now that they have had this further opportunity of discussing the affairs of the British Transport Commission, will give us this Bill, which represents an extension of work not only for themselves but also the provision of additional railway facilities for many private productive undertakings in this country. The fact that those private productive undertakings want many of these extensions of railway facilities indicates, I think, the value of the railways even to private enterprise today.

Sir W. Wakefield: Will the Minister explain why handling costs at various junctions have gone up by as much as 700 per cent.? Does that suggest the efficiency he has described to the House?

Mr. Barnes: I am not able to accept a statement of that kind across the Floor of the House, and no one knows that better than the hon. Member. We cannot deal with a statement of that kind by question and answer across the House, but I shall not hesitate to send him a communication on the point.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman said he could not tell the House about the increase in freight charges and he said that that was a decision for the Government. Would he not agree that


under the Transport Act it was a decision for him? Will he say why he has not yet taken that decision?

Mr. Barnes: I thought I had already conveyed the answer to that. I think hon. Members have supported the need for the serious consideration of this problem. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) knows that in this case, as in other cases, the Minister would consult and take into consideration the views of his colleagues.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION)

Postponed proceeding resumed on Question,
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: A little earlier this evening I mentioned that the National Health Service Superannuation Regulations which we are presenting tonight are, in the main, simply consolidating what in the past has been dealt with through three separate documents. There is no doubt that that consolidation is itself of great value to all those who are serving within the National Health Service today.
I went on to point out that there are included in these new Regulations certain amendments which I should like to explain briefly to the House. These changes have, of course, been discussed with the staff associations through the Whitley Council machinery, and in fact in many cases our proposals emanated from the Whitley Council itself. The great majority of these changes represent an improvement in the terms of the scheme for the staff, an improvement mainly of convenience rather than involving any increased cost to the Exchequer, except for one of the amendments to which I shall refer later, which does involve some small additional cost to the Exchequer.
In the first place, the widow's pension is basically one-third of the husband's pension and up to now it has been adjusted according to the difference in age

between man and wife. The tables which were worked out were fairly complex and resulted, rather oddly, in the fact that for a given difference in age the wife's potential widow's pension—the proportion of her husband's pension—gets less as the man's age increases. Now we propose in these regulations to drop this arrangement, as it certainly adds to the complication without giving any very real advantage. In Regulation 15, two new paragraphs, (17) and (18), deal with a limited number of cases in which otherwise, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said in our last discussion on the subject in the previous Parliament, the Minister would have "dropped down a crack." The same is true of paragraph (16).
The greatest change which is of interest to Members of both sides is that covered by Regulations 28 and 30. Here it is proposed to give the further option to those who, when the scheme was originally introduced, decided to stay subject to the terms which applied to them in their employment before they were transferred. This, I would point out, was an Amendment which my right hon. Friend agreed to introduce due to the representations made to him from the staff side of the Whitley Council; and I might point out that my right hon. Friend was not very willing originally to agree to this amendment, because it does mean quite considerable work and because it must involve a certain added expenditure on staff, and so on, and we cannot, of course, be continually giving new options to those who entered into the scheme or who are at present outside of it, otherwise the whole actuarial basis of the scheme would be endangered.
As I say the staff side of the Whitley Council have asked for this amendment, this further option, that those who are outside the State scheme be given a further opportunity of coming in. They asked for that when we were introducing amending regulations some months ago, and then my right hon. Friend felt that it would not be possible to accede to their request. However, they reiterated their request that we should consider this option in the form in which we have included it in these Regulations, and on further consideration my right hon. Friend felt that it was reasonable


that it should be included, for the very fact that, since the original option, there have been several changes in the superannuation scheme all in favour of the staff, and therefore the staff can rightly claim that they ought to have a further opportunity of coming in.
Now we feel that we have reached a period in these regulations when we have completed the preliminary stages, and that we have got to have some sort, I will not say of finality, because we are dealing here with very large numbers of staff, and it is quite clear that it may be some years yet before we achieve any sort of finality—if, indeed, we ever do—but we feel that we have at least got to the point where we can hope that there will not be need for further amendment for some time to come. As I say, this must not be regarded as any precedent for reviving options again, and I understand that the staff side quite appreciate that point.
The new Regulation 28 and Regulation 47 make for greater freedom of movement between the central and local health services. In proviso (iii) of Regulation 46 (2), a limit is proposed to the remuneration which dentists can reckon for superannuation purposes. A generous figure has been taken, and the British Dental Association have accepted it. Then Regulation 46 has also been amended to exempt the general practitioner who employs an assistant from liability for the employer's contribution for the assistant. This is the particular amendment I referred to earlier that will throw some extra charge on the Exchequer, but which we feel is a reasonable adjustment in the financial arrangements between the Exchequer and the general practitioners.
While we hope that we have reached the stage of some reasonable settlement of these very complex Superannuation Regulations, I would point out again, as I did when I was introducing some amending Regulations some months ago, that we are always most willing to discuss this problem with the staff side of the Whitley Council on any relevant matters they may wish to raise, and that offer, as they well know, stands now as it did then. So, although we are closing the books temporarily, to use another expression of the right hon. and gallant Member opposite, I would again say that

we are not closing them finally although I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary for me to come before the House with further amending Regulations for some considerable time to come. It is in that spirit that I present these Regulations to the House and hope that they will be accepted by the House.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it may meet the convenience of the hon. Gentleman and the House if we take this with the following regulations relating to Scotland, as I understand that they are identical.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: They are not in fact absolutely identical. There are regulations affecting the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, although the general principles in relation to, say, Regulation 27, of which the Minister was speaking, apply to the whole country. I should think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we could have a short subsequent discussion on the Scottish regulations and that the main points could be covered in a general discussion of the Regulations which have been submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary. Naturally we are entirely in the hands of other Members to say whether that would suit them or not.

Mr. Speaker: So far as I am concerned, that seems to be a sensible arrangement.

10.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In that case I think the first thing is to register a point of general agreement. The point of general agreement is that these are very complex regulations indeed. A second point of general agreement is that they are undoubtedly lengthy. On the whole, however, I think that it is felt that these Regulations are largely concerned with consolidation and that they represent a very long and sustained effort to try to bring the Regulations governing the new service into a convenient form for all who have to work upon them.
I am sure we are agreed that the fact that there is now both for Scotland and England, a body of regulations which one can hold in one's hands and lift without undue difficulty, is, at any rate, an advantage compared with the rather complicated card game one used to play to try to find out exactly what was anyone's right under the proposals.

Mr. Messer: Even if they cannot be understood.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: One is nearer to understanding a single body of incomprehensible print than a variety of documents of incomprehensible print, and the collation of texts has always been the first step towards the introduction of dogma and belief, and we hope that it will be so in the case of these documents also.
The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that several of these Regulations were an advantage, he thought, to those who would come under them. I am not sure that that holds in every case. I think that Regulation 8 (2) represents a slight worsening of the position for the individual, but that it is in general a convenience for those who are working the scheme as a whole. I think we should all agree that the rather anomalous effect by which the scaling up or down of the pension in accordance with the length of life of the husband actually boomeranged upon the widow in many cases, and was an advantage to her far outweighing the advantage which might arise from a scaling up. I therefore think we should agree to that.
On the regulations governing the carrying around of a person's superannuation rights, as a snail, so to speak, carries its shell, again I think that is an advantage; and we should seek, as far as we can, to make those services of one kind or another interchangeable. Nothing is more annoying, when a person wishes to transfer from one public service to another, than to find that a block comes because the rights which have been carefully built up in one service are forfeited on moving to another service. All my hon. Friends, I think, would be most anxious that this principle should be further extended. I hope it will be able to be extended even within the Commonwealth, so that a much greater freedom of movement can take place than is at present possible.
It is inevitable, in the circumstances of these large services and these complicated documents, that a certain number of persons do not feel themselves fully covered, even after the matter has been negotiated with the Whitley Councils concerned. As the Parliamentary Secretary will know, Regulations 27, 28 and 30 bring up other points than those which he drew to the

attention of the House. It is true that under the new regulations further people can get into the schemes. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all parties have been approached on behalf of large professional bodies who would seek a further opportunity of getting out of the scheme. They would be more anxious to remain in the federated scheme than in the Health Service scheme, and many of them would feel that they were being transferred automatically to the Health Service scheme which, for some of them, offers fewer advantages than the federated scheme under which they were working.
For instance, under the regulations, the pension is awarded only to the individual who serves to the minimum pension age; that is, 60 for men and women, except for nurses, physiotherapists, midwives and health visitors, in whose case the minimum pension age is 55. When retirement takes place before the minimum pension age, the individual in the Health Service scheme only receives back his or her own contribution—the 6 per cent. contribution, plus interest, which is subject to Income Tax. Am I right?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, only in the case of retirement due to illness quite a different point arises, and very much better provision is made under the State scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of female nurses and hospital officers a great number of the retirements are on account of marriage—the nurses being a particularly attractive section of the community, and a section in whom the wastage—if one may use that singularly inappropriate word—due to marriage is extremely high. It is a good thing that the marriage rate should be high and that the turnover should be rapid. The fount of human sympathy is not inexhaustible; after a certain period the springs will tend to run a little dry, and I think that a change-over in nurses does no great harm. I think it is a good thing that those who perhaps have no calling for the profession, should move on to family life where the springs are more constantly refreshed.

Mr. Mikardo: Let the husband "carry the can" and not the patient?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should have thought that the husband would be able to endear himself more to his ever-loving wife than a chronic sick person, however attractive. However, this service in which there is a high marriage rate, is not as well advantaged by the provisions which insist on service up to 55, as by provisions which allow for a prescribed period—only five years in the case of a qualified nurse or midwife, who then gets back the whole of the contributions, including the employers 10 per cent., which may be taken in a cash lump sum or an annuity.
It may be asked, why, then, did these people transfer? The applications were so great and the amount of paper work that was going on was so extensive that a great many people did not fully appreciate the position. A very high figure is given, as high as 10,000, of those who prefer to be in the federated scheme. That may be true, but undoubtedly there is a grievance felt. It is impossible to make any amendments, and we also know that there are considerable difficulties in allowing a two-way movement. The Minister will say that we merely get all the bad risks in each of the schemes. I hope he will be able to take a wider view. It is a pity that there should be any feeling of grievance allowed to remain among these people to whom we are so indebted.
I hope that the Minister will undertake to look at the matter and to consider whether some temporary re-opening of the books cannot take place for the outward movements in the same way as he is allowing for the inward movements. I am sure that he does not wish to collect people into the National Health Scheme who would be happier under the federated scheme. We do not deny that there are considerable actuarial difficulties in making any such adjustments. We know that there are many adjustments which still have to be made. When making any further adjustments, I ask that the Minister should consider this one, and if he is prepared to say that he will not shut his mind on the matter, it will be a great relief to those who have brought this matter forward to Members on both sides and have made a very persuasive case.
As to there being some arrangements made for superannuation in the case of dentists, that is, no doubt, inevitable. It

will represent some reduction in the share of gold which has been falling upon this worthy class, not all retained for the purpose of fillings, but most of it subsequently being removed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Mikardo: Extracted, not removed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, Sir. It did not remain long enough for the process of extraction to be necessary. It was rather channelled off as it was descending, and I am sure the hon. Member will have experience of it in the industrial undertakings which he advises. It is a pity the dentists' position is so complicated just now and I am sure it will need a considerable amount of readjustment still.

Dr. Morgan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said three or four times that representations were made to all parties. Is there any substantiation for that statement, because I have no recollection of any representations being made to Members of this party?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I only know that I received an invitation to a meeting of all parties to be addressed by the representatives of the various organisations concerned. I should have thought that the hon. Member would also have received an invitation to that meeting, but certainly an invitation did go out. It said that it was addressed to all parties, and I see no reason to doubt that.

Dr. Morgan: Apparently it was to specially selected members of the various parties.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If it were only addressed to specially selected members of the parties, it is clear that it was not addressed to any particular political party but was addressed to a group of political thinkers. That is all I said, and I am sure those bringing forward the proposals were anxious to have them considered as a non-party matter, and it is as a nonparty matter I am advancing them tonight.
These are long and complicated Regulations and it would be quite impossible and wrong to try to go through them in detail tonight. They have been subject to a considerable examination by the professional bodies concerned, and on the whole


they represent agreement. The House, therefore, would be well advised to support the Motion that these Regulations should now be brought into force. I only bring forward one or two points where, in spite of these complicated workings, there is a feeling of grievance still, and I trust the Minister will be able to give a certain amount of sympathetic consideration to the case I have ventured to put to him.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Messer: What the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said is quite true—that this is one of those subjects which cuts across party divisions. One cannot work up very much enthusiasm from a party point of view on a question of superannuation. However, I think the Minister is to be congratulated on doing what has been needed for many years, that is, to codify the Superannuation Regulations.
One of the difficulties which has been experienced in the hospital world has been the different practices as between the public service and the voluntary service. There has been no one recognised superannuation scheme for the staffs of voluntary hospitals. What, in effect, happened was that what was termed the federated scheme was merely a variation of insurance. These staffs were in the position of having an insurance policy the premium of which was paid jointly by the staffs and the governing body of the hospital. In certain circumstances, where members of the staff had service, they were entitled to a return not only of their own contributions but those which had been made by the employer. It had never been the case in the public service that when there was a return of contributions the employer's contribution was given with that of the member of the staff. In some respects, it is true to say that the federated scheme had some advantage over the public scheme.
The introduction of the National Health Service necessitated a comprehensive scheme. One therefore realises that the federated scheme is transitional and that there will be one scheme. Those who had been previously working with the voluntary hospitals had no experience of the superannuation schemes of the public service and were not mentally equipped to judge which was the better. Although

we have heard that the Whitley Council were made aware of what was happening and that the staffs' representatives on the Whitley Council were entrusted with the responsibility of conveying decisions to members of the staff, the fact is that there is no contact between the staffs as such and members of the Whitley Council. It is true to say that if we presented to an ordinary nurse, intelligent though she may be, regulations such as these, she could not be expected to understand them. I imagine that it would need a very clever lawyer, with an extensive library of law books behind him, to wade safely through the references which are made, for example, in Regulation 36.
It is possible that some members of the staff opted to come out of the federated scheme without realising all the implications. I do not know what the number is likely to be, but I wonder whether the Minister could say if it is possible for him, if he is convinced that somebody opted mistakenly to go into the national scheme, to give another opportunity to that member? There might be a mass migration from the public scheme to the federated scheme. I realise that any scheme of superannuation must be based actually and that it might be impossible for there to be any mass migration. If the Minister is convinced that there is hardship, would it be possible for him in selected cases, where he is convinced that a genuine mistake has been made, to consider such cases as were brought to his notice?
One big advance that the regulations make is that, in the first instance, the staff were given three months in which to make up their minds. It might have been an ample time for some of them, but not sufficient for the others. The Minister now recognises that three months was not adequate because in the new Regulations he gives six months. He must therefore admit that three months was inadequate. If that is the case, would it not be possible for him to say: "I now recognise that three months is inadequate and I must in consequence recognise the possibility of somebody doing something in error." If that is a good argument—and I hope it is—perhaps the Minister will be good enough to consider the cases of people who will regard themselves as suffering hardship unless some such provision is made.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: I should like to join my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) in congratulating the Minister in having consolidated these Regulations. It is true they are extremely difficult to understand, but more than anything else that is some indication of the complicated history of the hospital system of this country over the last 20 years. We have brought into the National Health Service hospitals which were in the hands of guardians, of poor law authorities, of local authorities and of voluntary governors; and every one of these sections has brought its own superannuation scheme into the National Health Service, and these schemes have had to be dovetailed into the new Regulations. Consequently, it is a tribute to the Minister and his advisers that they have been able to make a coherent and unified scheme out of a jigsaw puzzle of old provisions.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing the Regulations, made one reference which I should like to take up. He indicated that these Regulations had passed through the Whitley Council machinery and he was content to rest upon that fact in claiming that those who, on the staff side, come under them accepted them and had been consulted with regard to them. These Regulations will affect not only those who are to be in the National Health scheme, but also those who may be in private practice and may voluntarily come into the National Health scheme.
These sections of the staff are not represented on the Whitley Council, but they are represented by their professional associations, and the Minister might make note of the fact that the three or four associations who met members of the House yesterday said that they had had no opportunity of considering these Regulations at all and in fact only had copies of them yesterday morning. I think the Minister will agree that the Regulations are sufficiently complicated for the professional bodies which have some serious interest in them, and I think that in future some steps should be taken to see that they are not expected to consider the Regulations only one day before they are approved by the House. The Minister may say that is not the fact. I can only

repeat to him what was told to us yesterday.
The third and last point I should like to make is to reinforce the plea already made for opening up a two-way option. The Minister has improved the National Health Service superannuation scheme and is giving a second choice to those who did not come into it in October, 1948, to choose to come into it if they want to do so. I believe there is strength in the claim that some of those who entered in October, 1948, may regret it and wish to have second thoughts. The hon. Member for Tottenham said that they opted to come into the National Health Service scheme. In fact, it was not a question of contracting in; they had to opt to come out, and inertia and confusion and misunderstanding were all in favour of making no choice.
If I may mention to the House a personal experience of the condition of mind of hospital staffs during the three months when they had to make a choice, I can think of a hospital with which I am associated where I found, only three or four days before the last date—4th October I think it was—the whole staff in confusion about the meaning of the Regulations to such an extent that I had to come to town, find a member of the Superannuation Section of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry, put him in my car, take him to the hospital and, at no more than three days' notice trying to get an explanation for the staff of that hospital. There was not only confusion at the meeting, but, I regret to say, that helpful officer was caught out on his own Regulations, and had to write some days afterwards to explain what the situation was. I do not blame him, he did his best.
I am certain there were scores, perhaps, hundreds or thousands, in no position to make a choice between July and October, 1948, during the "flaps" and chaos there were in the hospital system at that time. It would be justice for these people, even if it means administrative difficulty, to give them the opportunity of having another look at the alternatives and of making a choice—not by default, which was what the majority of them did at the time—and possibly coming out of the scheme and back to the one in which they were before 4th October. With those remarks I agree that we can unreservedly commend these Regulations to the House.

10.37 p.m.

Dr. Hill: In the few remarks I shall make, I will try not to add to the feeling of intellectual exasperation which is apt to overcome one when one examines and considers these Regulations. They do achieve an almost inevitably high standard of intelligibility, but in part that is due, it is only fair to add, to the readiness with which the Minister has made a number of small smoothing out points which have been put to him from various sources. I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) in giving a general welcome to these Regulations, and to congratulate the Minister and his advisers—with a special word for his advisers in this peculiarly difficult job—on what has been done.
The Parliamentary Secretary described the advantages of the Regulations. It is true that he mentioned that any practitioner now contemplating holy matrimony will no longer have to engage in complicated mathematics to see what effect the margin of age between the practitioner and his bride will have on the widow's pension in certain circumstances. Further, he has removed an anomaly under which the widow who was herself a practitioner is no longer prevented from enjoying the widow's pension as well as such pension as she has herself earned.
I would like to reinforce the plea put forward for further consideration of the two-way option. I think the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) made the main point in this connection. There were 88 pages of Regulations governing superannuation in the first draft, and within the space of three months certain groups, mainly nurses and members of some societies, and physiotherapists, had to decide for themselves whether it was to their advantage to do nothing and pass automatically into the new superannuation set-up, or take the step of opting out. The extent to which human inertia played a part in the complicated situation, led to a situation in which the individual found himself or herself inside the scheme and there was a failure to appreciate the effect of the decision on a considerable number of the individuals. It would be wise and fair, I suggest, on some appropriate future occasion—perhaps an early occasion—to meet this two-way point, despite the admitted difficulties.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, this is the fourth document, embodying, as it does, the other three. All four sets of Regulations have in fact been submitted to this House in this form for a single decision, to affirm or not to affirm. That has led to very considerable difficulties. A new body of superannuation legislation has been set up by that method, with the result that it has been practically impossible for this House, as a House, to seek, and to make certain, of any particular changes it desired to make. The choice before the House tonight is to affirm or not to affirm the whole of this document, embodying the consolidation and change of some 28 Regulations.
I put to the Minister the suggestion that consideration should be given in future, now that the fluid stage is over—and I do not deny the great advantage of the Regulation method in that fluid stage—to dealing with superannuation by dissecting out the principles from the details and embodying the principles in a Bill to come before the House, so that it can be discussed here and in Committee in all its details. He could then give the House an opportunity not only of accepting or rejecting the draft in toto, but of submitting the various parts of the scheme to that scrutiny which will lead not only to a fuller understanding on the part of the House of the superannuation position, but to a more satisfactory position.
This has been an intellectual feat which must have caused many headaches. The Minister is to be congratulated on the general result. But I hope that he will not wish us to take too seriously the hint which he gave that we are approaching finality in this matter. He should be ready, as new problems and new angles to old problems come to him, either through the Whitley machinery or by direct representation, to put forward draft Regulations, bearing in mind the difficulty which confronts the House when it has to say "yea" or "nay" in relation to a large and complicated document.

10.43 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I wish to congratulate the Minister on producing regulations which will be acceptable to everyone. The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) made two points which I hope the Minister will not accept. I hope he will stick to his present plan. The hon.


Member for Luton spoke of the "human inertia" of those who did not get into the scheme by their own action. But this was not the result of human inertia. To get exempted from the National Health scheme they had to make an application within three months to be left out. That was a deliberate action on the part of those individuals, who knew what they were doing.

Dr. Hill: Is it not a case of inertia when, by doing nothing, one drifts into the new scheme without asking oneself whether the new scheme has advantages over the scheme which covers one at the moment?

Dr. Morgan: They had the option of doing nothing and getting into the new scheme, but they quite deliberately, after consideration, within three months, put in an application saying that they did not want to go into the new scheme but preferred to remain in the old scheme. I have their own document in front of me which was sent to me today for the first time, and which was sent only to selected Members with a notice of a meeting yesterday.

Mr. Linstead: If the hon. Member will permit me, I still think he has not grasped the point. There are a certain number of people who took no action at all and consequently found themselves in the scheme. On reflection, they may have wished that they had taken action and had remained in the old scheme. It is on behalf of those people, who have got in through no action of their own and who may wish to get out, that this plea is being made.

Dr. Morgan: The more I am interrupted, the more I am certain I am correct. As a matter of fact, in the course of my medical duties I attend to more cases of superannuation than any other professional Member in the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Advertising,"] I am not advertising. There is no need for me to advertise, because my post and salary are fixed. But here is the statement or document about one-way action:
Nurses and other staffs of the old voluntary hospitals were mostly subject to the federated scheme before July, 1948. On the transfer of hospitals to the State, transferred F.S.S.N. members were automatically brought within the Health Service Superannuation

Scheme unless, within three months of the appointed day, they had exercised a right of option by making written application to remain superannuable in the F.S.S.N.

Mr. Baird: rose—

Dr. Morgan: I want to make a very short speech, because I want to get home. I know this thing upside down. I am on the executive of a trade union—[Interruption.]—I am sorry this is causing a considerable amount of levity because sometimes it involves great hardship to workers in all grades who come into a superannuation scheme. I want to thank the Minister, and to say how much we and those concerned on the Whitley Council, who have been fighting for this superannuation scheme, congratulate the Department on bringing forward a good scheme, a very fine scheme, and we hope the Minister will stick to the principle of the one-way option and not give way on it, because it is the best point of the whole scheme.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to one or two points raised in the Debate from both sides of the House. We are certainly grateful for the atmosphere in which these regulations have been received and for the very helpful points put from both sides of the House. I should like to express my own gratitude for the work of the staff who have been chiefly concerned with these very complex problems. It is no easy job, as any of us know, because any superannuation scheme, whether this or local government superannuation or the multitude of private superannuation schemes, are all exceedingly complex to work. It is to the great credit of the staff that they have succeeded in mastering the scheme and that there have been so very few complaints to deal with in its operation to date.
The main issue raised, both by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and by others, has been this question of option—whether the option should be a one-way or a two-way option. I think that everyone who has raised the matter has expressed an understanding of the difficulties that we are faced with in any consideration of a two-way option. I want, first, to make it clear that we ourselves and I understand the officers of the


federated scheme did do their utmost to make the terms of the two schemes understood to the staffs of the hospitals and to other staffs concerned with the scheme on both sides. I have in my hand a copy of one of the explanatory leaflets—I should almost say "booklets"—issued by the Ministry, certainly in much simpler language, which were distributed Very widely to everyone throughout the hospitals and which were there in good time for hospital staffs to consider.
It is also true that on the staff side of the Whitley Council there are representatives of some of the chief organisations that have recently made some representations on this matter to hon. Members on both sides of the House. As they have been associated with the proposals on which we are actually working, they certainly must have had very full information on these proposals, because they indeed made them. Had they not on the staff side put forward these proposals, my right hon. Friend would probably not have put them forward himself.
This is a very real administrative problem. Taking the one-way option, it would apply to some 46,000 people. We are giving a new option to some 46,000 people, which is a very real administrative strain, and at this time we have got to think of that very seriously. But we do feel that the advantages to the scheme over the long-term are such that it is worth taking that strain now. Were we to make it a two-way option it would mean having to revive an option for some 140,000. That is a very different matter indeed, and I suggest to hon. Members on both sides that, realising as we do today the importance of administrative problems, the question of staff, finance and the rest, this would be impracticable in that form.
I appreciate that there must be individual cases of hardship, and my right hon. Friend has already found ways of dealing with certain individual cases that have been brought to his notice. I certainly can say that he would be very willing to adopt a similar attitude to any other individual cases of hardship that may be brought to his notice in this coming period. I hope that with that assurance—that we recognise the problem, that we will look into individual cases, and that this is the best practical way out

of the problem that we can offer—hon. Members will approve these Regulations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

10.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): I beg to move:
That the Draft National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
The Scottish and English Health Service superannuation schemes have always run on parallel lines, and there is complete interchangeability between the two schemes. The Scottish Regulations which are before the House tonight contain all the Amendments which the House has just approved for the English Health Service. Because of that I do not propose at this hour to repeat any explanation of these Regulations.
There is, however, one additional Amendment which has no counterpart in the English Regulations, and I feel that I ought to give a few words of explanation on that particular Amendment. In paragraph (2) of Regulation 43, the Secretary of State has power to make supplementary payments on retirement to certain doctors in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland—to those doctors only who gave service before 5th July, 1948, in the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Scheme. Under the original Regulation, those supplementary payments could only be made to doctors when they retired. The Amendment which we propose in the Regulations is to give these supplementary payments to doctors who decide to leave a practice in the Highlands and Islands so long as they continue to serve under the National Health scheme.
There are very good reasons for that new decision. The Highland practices, in the main, cover very large territories. Very often the doctor has a journey not only by car but by boat. It is very possible that as a doctor becomes older these journeys and having to look after such a practice really go beyond his physical capacity. We would not wish any doctor in that position to remain in a practice in the Highlands or Islands because of


his fear that he would lose his supplementary payment.
We wish to give a doctor in that position the chance to find a practice in another part of the country which would tot be such a physical strain, and thus to take away the danger of a doctor remaining in the Highlands and Islands when he is not really physically able to cope with the work. That is the reason we have introduced this further Amendment to the Scottish Regulations. The Amendment would not cost a great deal of money to the scheme. There are only about 50 of these doctors who could benefit from this further provision.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has given an assurance, on the question of option, that where it can be proved that real hardship is obtaining because of insufficient opportunity to exercise the option the Minister of Health will give them his consideration. I can give the same assurance for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland. With that assurance and with the explanation of the only further Amendment which we are making in the Scottish Regulations, I commend them to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure we would not desire to detain the House, especially after the attractively presented speech of the hon. Lady, and the more so because, retaining her Scottish nature, even in her charm, she has commended to us the difference between the Scottish and English proposal—that it will not cost very much more—an unusual argument from her side of the House which makes all the greater appeal.
The hon. Lady gave the same assurance as the Parliamentary Secretary that individual cases of transfer on the two-way option might be considered. I do not yet think that that is quite adequate. I trust that she and the Secretary of State for Scotland will press on the Minister of Health the arguments, to which he has not had the advantage of listening, in favour of a rather further opening of the book. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a figure of 46,000 affected by the one-way transfer and as many as 140,000 by the two-way transfer. Let the House observe that that is the measure of the number of people who might have a grievance. The Government should not

only look at it from the point of view of those who cause administrative trouble but of those whose grievance might be removed. I do not take that as the full answer. I trust it will be possible to look at this matter, and, if possible, to remove the feeling of grievance, which I do not think will apply to anything like the larger number mentioned. Even the four societies which came before us mentioned only 10,000, and proportionately it will be smaller in Scotland. As the problem would be more manageable in Scotland, the Minister might be able to deal with it in a subsidiary Regulation, as in the case of the Highlands and Islands. The more compact nature of our population might enable him to deal with this matter without the enormous disadvantage which the greater nation suffers through differences of size and complexity. Otherwise, I am sure we should all desire to see the Regulations approved tonight.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

So much of the Lords Message [28th March] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Boyle.]

Lords message considered accordingly.

Select Committee of six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act, in the present Session: Captain Duncan, Mr. Forman, Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson, Mr. Janner, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Profumo.

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Royle.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Failsworth, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Hitchin, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Leigh, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Malton, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved."—[Mr. de Freitas.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, BIRMINGHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Yates: I rise tonight to raise a very vital matter to the City of Birmingham—the housing of the inhabitants of that city. This is the first occasion that I have had the Adjournment. When I first addressed the House, I made reference to this important social problem as it affected the City of Birmingham. Today a very grave social problem has to be faced. On that first occasion I made reference to the fact that in Birmingham there were 30,000 families living in rooms. I understand today that the figure is nearer 50,000 families, which means there are 100,000 families living together and, on the basis of just over three to a family, one-third of the population of the city is living under overcrowded conditions.
I understand that from 1st April, 1945, until 23rd March, 1950, only 4,151 new permanent houses had been completed, but all who have studied the problem agree that to meet the situation prevailing in Birmingham we need 100,000

houses. That is taking into consideration not only the 50,000 families living in rooms, but also the 50,000 houses unfit for human habitation. I think that the city has done well in building certain temporary houses and in effecting conversions, but the new permanent housing programme shows that only just over 4,000 houses have been built. Although the Ministry have given the allocation to the city, there are still 3,000 houses to be commenced. So far as the Minister is concerned, the responsibility has now passed to the local authority. The local authority are not being held up by any regulations or restrictions on the part of the Government.
It is a very serious matter that the rate of building permanent houses in Birmingham is below the average for the Midlands Region, and it is certainly much below the average for the whole country. The principal reason for this is the labour situation. I would point out to my hon. Friend that my colleagues on this side of the House and myself who represent Birmingham took the opportunity on 17th July, 1948, to confer with the local authority. The initiative was taken by us, and we had a conference to consider the matter at the Council House, Birmingham. We were informed on that occasion that over 1,600 men were engaged in the building of permanent houses.
Looking at the figures for the week ended 9th March last, we find that the number engaged on building permanent houses in Birmingham was 1,392. If one worker builds one house per year, it is quite clear that we have not the means to build even 1,500 houses to meet our enormous demands. There were 1,302 engaged in building permanent houses for the week ending 23rd March, and 225 on non-traditional houses. The number of houses built during the first week I have mentioned was 18, and for the second week ended 23rd March it was 17. It does not appear that we are going to reach an average of 25 houses per week.
I want to ask my hon. Friend about the labour position in Birmingham. It would appear that in the last 18 months over 200 building trade workers have been lost. I understand that there are over 21,000 building trade workers in the Birmingham zone. It is a tragedy that we should lose these workers, and I ask my hon. Friend to examine the position.


I do not wish to blame anyone. It does not matter who is in power in Birmingham. There is an enormous problem, and we have to do something about it. I ask the Minister, therefore, whether he cannot consider the question of priority in regard to building. Birmingham is engaged in industrial building, it is an important export area, and some special consideration should be given to the city. I ask the Minister whether he has considered setting up a mobile labour corps for the purpose of drafting people to a city like Birmingham, which for special reasons finds itself in this difficult position.
Further, we on this side have pursued our inquiries with the local authority ever since we met them in 1948, and it is a matter of extreme regret that, although we have been pressing since 5th July last to meet the local authority, the authority has so far refused, or found some reason to decline, to meet the Members of Parliament for the city.

Mr. George Thomas: Is it anti-Labour?

Mr. Shurmer: It has a Conservative majority.

Mr. Yates: It does not matter what the political composition of the authority is, the Members representing the city ought to be taken into consultation. I am informed that the Birmingham Trades Council, which is vitally interested in this matter, addressed correspondence to the local authority on 11th March last, a year ago, asking that a deputation might be received comprising the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives and the Trades Council. I have here a copy of that communication. I think the suggestions put forward by the trades council for consideration formed a basis for reasonable discussion. They included the question of the introduction of laboursaving methods; the discussion of absenteeism—which, for example, might be caused by inadequate transport facilities—and the setting up of a house-building department for the city, to try and prevent the drain of labour. The trade union representatives and the trades council have so far received no reply to their request—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It seems that some kind of iron curtain has been erected round the City Council.
I suggested on a previous occasion that it did not matter to me who built the houses as long as they were built. I have been looking at the building contracts that have been entered into in Birmingham, and I find that from 15th December, 1948, to 24th August, 1949, contracts were let to 10 builders for 2,015 houses. Not one house has been completed. I want to take two examples. There was one builder who entered into a contract on 19th October, 1945, for 530 houses, and he has only completed 478, and yet to that builder a further allocation was made in August last of 106 houses, and still he has not completed the contract which he signed in 1945.
The second example is of a Birmingham firm of builders who entered into contracts for 65 houses on 15th December, 1948, followed by 94 houses on 24th December, 274 on 8th August, then 112, and 22 on 17th August, making a total of 567 houses—not one of which is completed. Under the contract for 94 houses entered into on 24th December, 1948, the firm have not even placed one man upon the site—in 15 months! I ask the Minister whether he will examine this question of contracts to see why these houses are not being built. There are no restrictions upon the builders, who have complete freedom to build. It is vitally important that something should be done to arrest the drain of building trade labour and to reverse the present tendency, which I think is dangerous.
I represent a constituency that is suffering extreme agony from this problem. I should like to quote two letters which I received a few days ago. One is from a family who live in Icknield Street, Hockley. The man writes:
We are a young married couple with one child and another baby due in August and we sleep on the floor at the above address. The baby has to sleep on the floor with us as we have no place to put his cot.
The second letter is from the father of a family in Tuder Street, Winson Green, consisting of father, mother and three children under five years of age. He says:
A father is forced to see his children's health and vitality slowly sapped away by overcrowded conditions and lack of fresh air.
The writer of that letter enclosed a circular letter which he had received from the Medical Officer of Health, dated 20th January, 1950. It said:


Dangers of suffocation from overlaying: Provision of Cot. There is most grave danger of injury and even death from suffocation where an infant is put to sleep in the same bed with parents or with older children. Cases with such fatal results come before the coroners' courts in this country from time to time. If from lack of space you cannot give a separate cot, then as a temporary measure for not more than three months a basket or box or drawer would ensure baby's safety.
This man cannot even adopt that measure because of overcrowding. In my constituency, not so long ago, we had one of these cases before the coroner's court. I think it is upon our conscience.
We hold a grave responsibility for such conditions in a city like Birmingham, with more than one million of population. I appeal to the Minister to give some special consideration to Birmingham. There are 50,000 living in rooms. We had 12,000 houses completely destroyed by bombs during the war. There are 300,000 houses in the city, which means, if the life of a house is 100 years, that we have an annual wastage of 3,000 houses; and we are not building 50 per cent. of the wastage.
I think the time has come for revolutionary action in regard to housing in the City of Birmingham. If we do not take this action, it will mean that in a few years we shall get social and mental distress falling on the city, equivalent to the kind of financial and economic distress that came in the distressed areas. I ask the Minister to take up these points and to give some hope to the city that he will make inquiries and take every step that is possible to raise our city to a position of hope, in which we may feel that some attempt is being made to set the city on the road to housing its citizens in a reasonable and decent manner.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: The hon. Gentleman, in a long speech, has attacked the City Council and the builders.

Mr. Shurmer: Quite right.

Mr. Roberts: I am glad of that intervention from the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer); I will deal with him in a moment. No-one would suppose that after a smashing victory at the polls in 1945 the electors of Birmingham were exhorted to give Labour complete control of the City Council. They did it, and Labour retained it.

Mr. Shurmer: We never had a majority.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Who is there now?

Mr. Roberts: I will give some figures. In 1946, Unionists 66, on active service 2: Socialists 67; Independents 3. Chairmanship of the Public Works Committee was in the hands of the Socialists. In 1946–1947 they had complete control. From 1947 to 1949 as before. In May, 1949, we regained control. At the time they were in undisputed control, the hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that more was being done in this country than had been done in any other period in regard to housing, the housing position in Birmingham was as stable as ever it had been. That observation was made at the very height or depth of Labour control.
When the Unionist Party regained control, an all-party conference was held under the presidency of the Lord Mayor, and it made certain recommendations. These recommendations are being carried out. Meanwhile labour has largely disappeared. Why? I must remind the House that I pointed out to the Minister in 1946 that if the small speculative builder were killed off, labour would to a large degree be wasted or done away with. And so it has. What is the remedy? An election is coming along shortly. This is the first round. The second round will be on Sunday, when there is to be a meeting at the Town Hall, Birmingham, organised by the Birmingham Trades Council, at which the principal speaker will be Mr. Richard Coppock, general secretary of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives. It was he who in the dire days after the First World War told the listening world that his operatives proposed to exploit the situation. That is his conception of civic duties, and it is he who is to urge a remedy for bad ministerial policy.

11.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): Most of the issues which have been raised this evening are matters for local action rather than national action. As my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, we have done, and are doing, everything we can to encourage the maximum output of houses in Birmingham, dealing


with the problems of labour, materials and everything else. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the real and serious problems of labour shortage. As he said, this is the main issue which is holding up house building in Birmingham, as in other parts of the country. Any action which can be taken to overcome this difficulty we are all anxious to take.
The figure I have for the completion of houses is slightly different from my hon. Friend's figure, but I think he has not taken into consideration the number built by private enterprise, in spite of restrictions, and the number of temporary houses. In Birmingham there is a smaller proportion of building labour than in many other large towns. That means that the problem is perhaps more severe in Birmingham than in other parts of the country. It has been put forward in the standing joint committee set up in Birmingham and elsewhere that we must attempt to get a wider spread of orders over more building firms. That is emphasised by the comment my hon. Friend made on the slowness of certain contracts placed in 1945. I understand from the latest report we have that already some of the small number of big contractors who have had the monopoly of building work in Birmingham have been asked to surrender some of their contracts. It is hoped they will be transferred to other building contractors, although I have not heard whether that has yet succeeded.
The senior housing officer has said that the first move has been to reach agreement with the large contractors at present engaged on council contracts for the withdrawal from them of about 600 houses for which they hold contracts. An attempt was to be made to let contracts for 500 houses, the size of the contract ranging from four to 46, according to the size of the site and the firm. We have always been willing to encourage small builders to come into council house building. We have circulated details of the means by which they can come in, and there is therefore no reason why the builders referred to by the hon. Member opposite should not

have been able to come in in Birmingham. There is no bar. We are most anxious, subject to the view of the Council, that all possible labour should be devoted to this most urgent work.
The senior housing officer said that the Council were receiving excellent co-operation from the Ministry. I mention that because we have been spending a great deal of time in co-operation with the Council. Our experience suggests that the mobile labour force is a very expensive means of building. That does not rule it out altogether. It has been used in Birmingham on certain temporary buildings. It is one matter that can certainly be considered again, together with the proposals of the Council itself.
With regard to direct labour schemes, that is a matter obviously that the Council must decide for itself. Some local authorities up and down the country do operate direct labour schemes with varying results. Some are extremely successful. In my own part of the country, there are probably more direct labour schemes than in any other part. In the mining areas, we have been very successful with the great majority of our direct labour schemes, but there is no doubt that the most immediate hope of progress lies in transference of some of the orders that have become choked, as far as we can see, in some of these larger firms, which have not been able to carry on their work. In co-operation with the housing officials in Birmingham, we are doing our utmost to help to get these properly transferred and the work properly shared out, so that we can get completions speeded up.
I can assure my hon. Friend and all those obviously interested in this subject, that on our side we will do everything we can to help to speed up the housing progress in Birmingham, and that, as actual building work progresses in that city, we shall, of course, be willing to reconsider the temporary allocations made from time to time, as we are always prepared to do.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.